So, sell the fake horns for $3,000. Problem solved. You're welcome.

You don't see a non-replaceable battery as an issue for you . Right at the start you say you expect your phone to be a maximum age of one year old while in your possession. So, you don't ever have a phone that is out of warranty. Of course you are not going to see a problem with the battery (it is bad business to have parts go bad on your products while it is under warranty, because then you have to replace them). I, on the other hand, try not to waste my money. So, I have had my current phone (Nexus 5) for over a year and a half and will continue to use it until it breaks. It is more than fast enough to run any app I need to run. The screen is big enough and has a high enough resolution. I don't see what feature would come out that would necessitate that I buy a new phone. Though, I do at some point expect to have to spend $50 on a new battery. I guess you are willing to pay $600 per year to be "cool" or "fashionable" by having the latest device (or you are part of the 1% of users who actually needs the new features that come out), but for most people it is just a yearly, or bi-yearly tax that you have to pay to apple.

It can happen

.

In the example in the article, they are using wind generated electricity to make the fuel. So, the process is...

Electricity -> Synthetic Diesel Fuel -> Combustion -> Power (to wheels of car)

While for an electric car...

Electricity -> Battery Charge -> Battery Discharge -> Electric Motor -> Power (to wheels of car)

So, for the Electricity -> ... -> Power efficiency, on the Roadster Tesla claims to be at 86% efficiency (they call it plug to wheel efficiency). Compare that to the Electricity -> ... -> Power efficiency of the synthetic fuel which I am assuming to be between 10% and 20% ( 70% efficiency for creating fuel * 35% combustion efficiency * probably about 90% mechanical efficiency for transmission and differential).

I am not trying to say that there won't be a place for this technology. I just think that in most circumstances electric cars will be a much better option.

** A normally fueled car usually has a well-to-wheels efficiency of around 14%, so as far as actual energy efficiency goes, this fuel is doing pretty well. It just looks bad next to the high efficiency of electric cars.

It is pretty much guaranteed that charging an electric car takes less energy than this. Internal combustion engines are only ~35% efficient, so even if the process of creating the fuel is 100% efficient (which it is not, it is probably in the ideal case about 50% efficient), you would still need 3x the energy to create the fuel.

Hydrogen is actually a terrible fuel. Because it is always a gas at any reasonable temperature, it is either extremely bulky, or expensive and dangerous to store (high pressure).

Charging batteries is usually very efficient, so this process is probably significantly less efficient. Also, batteries discharge very efficiently, while an Internal Combustion Engine is usually around 35% efficient. I would guess that overall in the ideal case it would be on the order of 10-20% efficient (or less), compared to the roughly 90% efficiency of batteries. But, it is only a guess.

Normally, diesel fuel is burned thus...

Diesel Fuel + Oxygen -> CO2 + H2O + Energy

So, I would assume the opposite would be...

CO2 + H2O + Energy -> Diesel Fuel + Oxygen

The reason why diesel engines have problems with NOx emissions is because the high temperatures and pressures in diesel fuel cause the nitrogen in the air to react with oxygen. Nitrogen is not normally a component in diesel fuel.

Along the same lines, cars burning this fuel would probably still have NOx emissions.

I was just commenting on your incorrect view on physics. Yes, torque alone does not matter. The number that does matter is the 0-60, which was 3.2 seconds (for the P85D), 5.9 seconds (for 2012 base) or 5.4 (for the 2013 base). But, according to you that also does not matter. That the only thing that matters is the range. You move from one argument to another, and whenever one argument gets shot down you try another. You are biased against the car (or, more likely, electrics in general) and no matter what I say you will find something else to hate. I could bring up the supercharger network which is being constantly expanded. Or that most people drive less than 30 miles per day. But, you would just move on to your next argument, probably saying that they rank at the bottom because they don't have a trailer hitch. I am done feeding the trolls.

From reading your comments, I am about 50% sure that you are a troll, but I can't let a comment with such terrible physics interpretation stand without a response. Torque is a force. Force is not energy. Energy comes from work. Work is force times distance. So, you can have as much torque as you want, but if it is not moving no energy is being expended. To follow your tree example, the branches on the tree support enormous torque. But, they are not moving so do not produce energy. I would respond to your other points, but honestly didn't think it would be worthwhile trying to understand what you were saying after I realized you have zero grasp of physics.

But, it seems that a low of people are arguing that Glass should be illegal to wear while driving. Is it better to have to look down at your dash to view your navigation than to have it displayed in the corner of your vision? Or, is the argument that it CAN be used improperly (watching youtube, facebook, etc.) so it should be illegal? If that is the argument, then we should ban all guns because they can be used improperly (to kill innocent people).

Can you not do GPS navigation with google glass? Are GPS units (with screens) illegal in California?

$20 * 12 months * 2 years = $480

Am I missing something?

This thing will be expensive enough without shipping up armor and some sort of guns for shooting down missiles. So, a cruise missile could probably blow it to smithereens.

Should they be allowed to collect it if they don't decrypt it?