Free speech or not, I think the issue is that too many religious fundamentalists don't understand that freedom of religion also protects the freedom to criticize religion. If you can't express that a religion doesn't agree with you then that religion has power over you and you are not exactly free to choose. I've had long discussions with people that argued that freedom of religion does not guarantee freedom from religion, which is logic that I just can't understand. What I object to in this situation is the sentiment that criticizing islam then makes you anti-islam in the same way that nazi germany was anti-sematic. I am sick of people using the anti-semite card to silence any criticism of israel and I see this situation as no different. Anti-semitism should be used to describe the persecution of the Jews and the murderous or racist intent of people towards the Jewish population, not the perfectly legal discussion of the strengths or weaknesses of the Jewish faith or the international politics of Israel. I take offense to people that compare such criticism to genocide to silence the conversation, and I don't think that we should pander to that idea anymore.
Well, the interesting thing is that you fail to take into account that what they did was illegal. You can't just put up advertising in public places without permission and expect that the law will just say "don't do this shit again". I sure wish that would happen to me if I did something illegal. The law is going to assume that you must've had a reason for not asking permission and that opens up a whole set of concerns that aren't there when you follow the law. That is why the police took action.
They are abusing the implicit trust they receive as part of their job description, that they will not put their personal interest over the performance of their duties.
I think it's quite a stretch for you to say that they are fining CN out of "personal interest". If an individual had done this, the fine would probably have been much smaller....something like a misdemeanor vandalism fine. But since this is a large corporation, the large fine says "you should've known better than to do this shit. Here is something to make sure that you and everyone else knows that you can't do this."
And why not? I will say that I have a problem with my civil liberties being infringed on in the name of "national security". I have a problem with the government thinking it can play big brother and invade my privacy because it is essential to "fighting terrorism". But I really don't see where the police were at fault in this situation. Nobody's rights were taken away by this action. All they did was remove and destroy some suspicious looking things that were illegally hung from bridges and overpasses. I think the lesson to be learned is that companies shouldn't do illegal things for their silly little renegade advertising.
I just can't get over that nobody brings up the fact that none of this would've happened if Cartoon Network had notified the city that it was going to put little advertisements on it's bridges and overpasses. I like ATHF, but I have to say that I'm a little tired of these renegade advertising campaigns. We're talking about a major television network, and nobody thought they should perhaps go through the proper channels and obey the law? It's not okay to just put for-profit advertising up anywhere you like, especially from a huge corporation that has a multi-million dollar advertising budget.
A few D-battery-sized wads of high explosive, detonated in an open area (not the same as a shaped charge or a capped bore-hole!), would do nothing. Someone who happened to touch it at the moment of explosion might get killed, but it wouldn't do much better than that.
Yeah.....that's why none of the police wanted to touch it to find out what it really was.....dumbass. They just detonated it and asked questions later. Your knowledge of explosives obviously exceeds your knowledge of common sense. If you are part of a bomb squad and you get several reports of strange electronic things hanging from bridges, then you see a strange tubular thing wrapped in duct tape, you are going to take it very seriously.
When you hear about suicide bombs going off in markets and mosques in Iraq, these involve large backpacks or even vehicles stuffed to the brim with explosives. And they still usually only manage to take out, in a crowd, a dozen people!
Yeah...well, before 9/11 did you think that terrorists could kill over 3,000 people with box cutters? You really can't think that just because most bombs come in backpacks and cars that ones that don't can't possibly hurt anybody? Christ.....your hindsight is really 20/20 and that's all it is......hindsight. I don't think that you or most people would've done things much different if faced with the same situation. You don't take chances in the bomb diffusing field....period.
I don't care what this does to my karma but your post, while ripe with technical bomb making sense, lacks any common real world sense.
I'd stay away from Cingular if I were you. I switched to T-Mobile, tried the new SIM on my old phone, and noticed that there was a noticeably better sounding voice on the other end when using T-Mobile.
I have to agree with you there. What's really weird is that I just switched from Cingular to T-Mobile and in my area T-Mobile uses Cingular's towers so my unlocked razr still says Cingular on it, but my call quality is much better. I don't really get more bars on my phone, but I can actually make and receive calls when I have only 2-3 bars and they don't drop out after 30 seconds. Fewest dropped calls my ass. I'd love to see how Cingular fudged the numbers to back up that statement. I can only think that cingular's bad call quality problem is not between the tower and your phone, but somewhere in their hardwired network.
My software is nothing like blue frog. Blue frog would give you tools to easily get your e-mail removed from the spammers lists. They folded because spammers targeted DDOS attacks on their servers and made the software unusable. My software would basically launch a DDOS attack on anyone that sent out a spam e-mail to people that had my software. The more people you send out spam to, the larger the DDOS attack. The recipient of the e-mail has the final word on what is spam and is not. I think this would at least make spammers think about who they send e-mail to. At least if they actually targeted people that might be interested, not just any valid e-mail, the spam volume would reduce immensely.
I want to make a program that you can give a spam link (or many links) to and it will access that website over and over and over again when my computer is idle. How 'bout fighting back? Get enough people to use this program and you have a legitimate force.
Send a spam e-mail.....get slashdotted. How about that?
I agree that there are many things that our parents did that were not paying attention to us when we were kids that we had to deal with. I don't think that kids should get attention all the time from the parents, it's good for parents and kids to have their own time. I do have to disagree with someone using their blackberry at the dinner table though, that is just rude. Even being on the phone is at least somewhat inclusive to the people that are around you since they can at least hear what you are saying. I would be more upset as a kid for being forced to sit at a dinner table with parents that are doing their own thing and not talking to anyone, just buried in their blackberry. You might as well just let everyone take their dinner to their room.....the whole point of sitting down to dinner is to talk with your family.
So yes, leaving a wireless access point unsecured means it's constantly and actively inviting everyone to connect to it. It's not just sitting there waiting for connections (like a HTTP server, for example), it's like a spammer sending e-mails with connection instructions to everyone nearby.
So what then.....if my neighbor leaves his bright red sportscar with the door open and the keys in it, then all those photons of light that are bouncing off of it and onto my property and into my eyes are an invitation to get in it and take it for a drive? Why is there this line between physical purchased property and services bought? By connecting to someone else's network you are sending trespassing data on that network. This kid knew that this was not his network. He connected anyways. I imagine that if the owner of the network had complaints then it was probably because the kid was using an incredible amount of bandwidth. Enough that the rightful owner couldn't use his own internet.
My computer asks me if I want to connect to an untrusted network (I have a mac) so maybe connection software needs to have this provision so that people don't accidentally use a network that is not theirs. The law doesn't give you a break for negligence.
Paranoid? When has it not been okay to be paranoid? What do you call the Department of Homeland Security? The war on terrorism? Cameras on every streetcorner?
Why the hell is it not okay to have the same level of paranoia when it comes to electing our public officials?
Okay......your math here sounds good, but I think that you overlook a few points.
Your formula uses an arbitrary value of 400mph to get the horsepower from. The top speed of an F-16 is mach 2, or about 1524mph at sea level. Less at high altitudes. Using this speed we would get almost four times the power output.
However, given the nature of a jet engine, its thrust will decrease as airspeed increases, since it's thrust is based on throwing air out a nozzle. So we can assume that the engine will not be putting out maximum thrust at maximum speed.
From the Pratt and Whitney site, the thrust range of an F100-PW-220 engine is 23,770 - 29,160 lbs of force. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that at top speed the engine is putting out minimum thrust, then solving the equation we get:
(23,770 x 1524)/550 x 1.47 = 96,821
So we get 96,821 HP at top speed. I do find it hard to believe that this much power is needed to overcome drag on an f-16 at mach 2, but who knows.....
No, Contois is seeking a quick settlement from Apple through the use of an injunction against iTunes.
The case looks compelling enough for a judge to possibly grant an injunction, which Apple will then want to get out of ASAP given the importance of iTunes/iPod to their lineup right now.
I really don't think that Windows on Mac is an insane idea at all. Its been around for years in a crappy emulated version called VirtualPC. Windows on the Mac would stop OSX porting just the same as VPC does. The real thing that stops OSX ports is (duh) the market share. Windows on the Mac lets current PC users have the option of running OSX as long as their next computer is a Mac, all without giving up full Windows compatibility. There are a lot of people that really want to buy a Mac, but can't deal with losing all of their software investment and the headache of such a transition.
The PC spec is very standardized and Apple should have no problem making their Macs run windows. I don't see why they would need MS help to do that. The dev kits that Apple is selling do run Windows, and although there is no guarantee that the final products that consumers buy will as well, I think it is idiotic for Apple to break this option. This would finally get rid of the Windows compatibility problem that potential switchers face when moving to OSX. This could only help Apple's hardware sales.
Apple customers would not accept another platform move.
I agree.....there has already been enough of that in recent years. The key to Apple's strategy is "universal binaries". The cocoa development platform that Apple has gotten a lot of people to switch to is very processor independent. I think that Apple should keep with the universal binary strategy and allow themselves more processor choices. A lineup that includes Intel based computers for windows compatibility and low-power portables plus dual-core G5 workstations sounds pretty robust to me. Best of both worlds. Let the buyer decide what platform works the best for their needs. If the PPC architecture shifts back to be attractive to portables, then drop them in with no hassles. If the x86 legacy really starts dragging Intel behind, then the G5s will sell better.
My vote: Give OSX the choice to be on many different platforms. Apple locking themselves into a single chip company has always caused problems, because eventually that company stops caring about them.
I totally agree with all your theories about the holdup of Tiger, but I think you may have forgotten about production. Last I heard pre-orders for Tiger were outselling TurboTax during tax season, so perhaps they are making sure they have enough copies available before they go and announce a product and then tell you that you might be able to find it on store shelves in six to eight weeks. It does take time to stuff all those boxes with freshly pressed and gold mastered software CDs.....
While I would hate to disagree with Stephen Hawking, he would seem to be in disagreement with most modern philosophers of science. A single observation can only disprove a theory if you know that observation to be definitively true
No, Hawking is totally correct. If you have a theory, then no matter how many times the experiments go along with the theory, it's still a theory and there is a possibility that eventually they won't. But that first time that the experiments conflict with the theory, then the theory is bunk. This is a common tool in the mathematics world called proof by example. You cannot prove something true by one example, but you can prove something false that way.
E.g: I theorize that any two numbers added together give an answer that is even.
Counter-proof: 2+3=5.
What you are saying is that any experiment may be a collection of many theories working together, and you may not know which part has gone wrong. This is true, but most scientists employ Occam's razor to such situations and go with the simplest answer. If I think a ball is bouncy, and I throw it against a wall and it sticks, I'm not going to assume that the light from the ball has somehow been altered during the experiment.
However, two centuries later we seem to have reached a point where a substantial segment of our society believe's that raw political opinions are too dangerous and must to be vetted and sanitized through a nanny-state machine before they are fit for the masses.
No, raw political opinions are a beautiful thing and should be protected. That is what this bill is trying to do. It's trying to get rid of political agendas that are disguised as something else. It's trying to get rid of lies in campaigning. It's trying to get rid of political fraud, pure and simple.
Ads in newspapers that looks like feature articles are made that way to trick their readers. These are very devious tactics that are basically conning people into thinking that they are reading an unbiased article, when in fact they are reading a paid advertisement for whatever product is being sold. Where the money comes from to promote an opinion has (or at least should have) a very serious effect on the credibility and weight that one gives to that statement. When you go to buy a car, who are you going to trust more, your friend that owns the same model, or the car salesman at the lot?
Political campaigns that pay money to create blogs are doing so to try and trick their readers into thinking that they are reading the opinions of an individual citizen, not political spin backed by the candidate being promoted. Campaigns are realizing that blogs are very popular because people want to read about what real people think and not hear stories spun through many layers of mass media and corporate money. I think that this bill actually protects blogs because it lets people know the nature of what they are reading. Without this bill we would end up with the blog world saturated with loaded sites and nobody would trust what they were reading anymore.
You say this bill is limiting free speech but it does nothing of the sort. Campaigns are still free to say whatever they want through any venue they want, but they must disclose that they've spent money on these sites so you should take their gushing praise of the candidate with a grain of salt.
I would like to see what effects this has regenerative braking efficiency. Having a cell that can recharge very quickly could conceivably recover more energy from stopping the vehicle if paired with a high output generator that can produce enough drag on the wheels, even at low speeds.
These cells seem to have a lot going for them....I just hope that they aren't going to be too expensive. Nano-tech is still very new, so it may not be coincidence that there are no prices attached to this product yet. 60-second recharge or not, nobody is going to want to buy a $40,000 Kia.
Slashdot Mirror
Free speech or not, I think the issue is that too many religious fundamentalists don't understand that freedom of religion also protects the freedom to criticize religion. If you can't express that a religion doesn't agree with you then that religion has power over you and you are not exactly free to choose. I've had long discussions with people that argued that freedom of religion does not guarantee freedom from religion, which is logic that I just can't understand. What I object to in this situation is the sentiment that criticizing islam then makes you anti-islam in the same way that nazi germany was anti-sematic. I am sick of people using the anti-semite card to silence any criticism of israel and I see this situation as no different. Anti-semitism should be used to describe the persecution of the Jews and the murderous or racist intent of people towards the Jewish population, not the perfectly legal discussion of the strengths or weaknesses of the Jewish faith or the international politics of Israel. I take offense to people that compare such criticism to genocide to silence the conversation, and I don't think that we should pander to that idea anymore.
Well, the interesting thing is that you fail to take into account that what they did was illegal. You can't just put up advertising in public places without permission and expect that the law will just say "don't do this shit again". I sure wish that would happen to me if I did something illegal. The law is going to assume that you must've had a reason for not asking permission and that opens up a whole set of concerns that aren't there when you follow the law. That is why the police took action.
They are abusing the implicit trust they receive as part of their job description, that they will not put their personal interest over the performance of their duties.I think it's quite a stretch for you to say that they are fining CN out of "personal interest". If an individual had done this, the fine would probably have been much smaller....something like a misdemeanor vandalism fine. But since this is a large corporation, the large fine says "you should've known better than to do this shit. Here is something to make sure that you and everyone else knows that you can't do this."
And why not? I will say that I have a problem with my civil liberties being infringed on in the name of "national security". I have a problem with the government thinking it can play big brother and invade my privacy because it is essential to "fighting terrorism". But I really don't see where the police were at fault in this situation. Nobody's rights were taken away by this action. All they did was remove and destroy some suspicious looking things that were illegally hung from bridges and overpasses. I think the lesson to be learned is that companies shouldn't do illegal things for their silly little renegade advertising.
I'll bet that giving one of these will not get anyone laid though
Well.....I think that Newsweek is really mainstream....
Looks like YouTube has responded, and is taking everything down. Not a big surprise
I just can't get over that nobody brings up the fact that none of this would've happened if Cartoon Network had notified the city that it was going to put little advertisements on it's bridges and overpasses. I like ATHF, but I have to say that I'm a little tired of these renegade advertising campaigns. We're talking about a major television network, and nobody thought they should perhaps go through the proper channels and obey the law? It's not okay to just put for-profit advertising up anywhere you like, especially from a huge corporation that has a multi-million dollar advertising budget.
A few D-battery-sized wads of high explosive, detonated in an open area (not the same as a shaped charge or a capped bore-hole!), would do nothing. Someone who happened to touch it at the moment of explosion might get killed, but it wouldn't do much better than that.Yeah.....that's why none of the police wanted to touch it to find out what it really was.....dumbass. They just detonated it and asked questions later. Your knowledge of explosives obviously exceeds your knowledge of common sense. If you are part of a bomb squad and you get several reports of strange electronic things hanging from bridges, then you see a strange tubular thing wrapped in duct tape, you are going to take it very seriously.
When you hear about suicide bombs going off in markets and mosques in Iraq, these involve large backpacks or even vehicles stuffed to the brim with explosives. And they still usually only manage to take out, in a crowd, a dozen people!Yeah...well, before 9/11 did you think that terrorists could kill over 3,000 people with box cutters? You really can't think that just because most bombs come in backpacks and cars that ones that don't can't possibly hurt anybody? Christ.....your hindsight is really 20/20 and that's all it is......hindsight. I don't think that you or most people would've done things much different if faced with the same situation. You don't take chances in the bomb diffusing field....period.
I don't care what this does to my karma but your post, while ripe with technical bomb making sense, lacks any common real world sense.
It's amazing how much more valuable you can make something by giving it away for free.
Of course there is underground water on Mars......don't you remember Total Recall? The guvenator has known about this for quite some time.....
I have to agree with you there. What's really weird is that I just switched from Cingular to T-Mobile and in my area T-Mobile uses Cingular's towers so my unlocked razr still says Cingular on it, but my call quality is much better. I don't really get more bars on my phone, but I can actually make and receive calls when I have only 2-3 bars and they don't drop out after 30 seconds. Fewest dropped calls my ass. I'd love to see how Cingular fudged the numbers to back up that statement. I can only think that cingular's bad call quality problem is not between the tower and your phone, but somewhere in their hardwired network.
My software is nothing like blue frog. Blue frog would give you tools to easily get your e-mail removed from the spammers lists. They folded because spammers targeted DDOS attacks on their servers and made the software unusable. My software would basically launch a DDOS attack on anyone that sent out a spam e-mail to people that had my software. The more people you send out spam to, the larger the DDOS attack. The recipient of the e-mail has the final word on what is spam and is not. I think this would at least make spammers think about who they send e-mail to. At least if they actually targeted people that might be interested, not just any valid e-mail, the spam volume would reduce immensely.
I want to make a program that you can give a spam link (or many links) to and it will access that website over and over and over again when my computer is idle. How 'bout fighting back? Get enough people to use this program and you have a legitimate force.
Send a spam e-mail.....get slashdotted. How about that?
I agree that there are many things that our parents did that were not paying attention to us when we were kids that we had to deal with. I don't think that kids should get attention all the time from the parents, it's good for parents and kids to have their own time. I do have to disagree with someone using their blackberry at the dinner table though, that is just rude. Even being on the phone is at least somewhat inclusive to the people that are around you since they can at least hear what you are saying. I would be more upset as a kid for being forced to sit at a dinner table with parents that are doing their own thing and not talking to anyone, just buried in their blackberry. You might as well just let everyone take their dinner to their room.....the whole point of sitting down to dinner is to talk with your family.
So yes, leaving a wireless access point unsecured means it's constantly and actively inviting everyone to connect to it. It's not just sitting there waiting for connections (like a HTTP server, for example), it's like a spammer sending e-mails with connection instructions to everyone nearby.
So what then.....if my neighbor leaves his bright red sportscar with the door open and the keys in it, then all those photons of light that are bouncing off of it and onto my property and into my eyes are an invitation to get in it and take it for a drive? Why is there this line between physical purchased property and services bought? By connecting to someone else's network you are sending trespassing data on that network. This kid knew that this was not his network. He connected anyways. I imagine that if the owner of the network had complaints then it was probably because the kid was using an incredible amount of bandwidth. Enough that the rightful owner couldn't use his own internet.
My computer asks me if I want to connect to an untrusted network (I have a mac) so maybe connection software needs to have this provision so that people don't accidentally use a network that is not theirs. The law doesn't give you a break for negligence.
If someone doesn't wont you to use their wireless , there are many ways to prevent it .
So if you leave your door unlocked on accident does that mean that anyone has the right to come in and sit down on your couch?
Paranoid? When has it not been okay to be paranoid? What do you call the Department of Homeland Security? The war on terrorism? Cameras on every streetcorner?
Why the hell is it not okay to have the same level of paranoia when it comes to electing our public officials?
Okay......your math here sounds good, but I think that you overlook a few points.
Your formula uses an arbitrary value of 400mph to get the horsepower from. The top speed of an F-16 is mach 2, or about 1524mph at sea level. Less at high altitudes. Using this speed we would get almost four times the power output.
However, given the nature of a jet engine, its thrust will decrease as airspeed increases, since it's thrust is based on throwing air out a nozzle. So we can assume that the engine will not be putting out maximum thrust at maximum speed.
From the Pratt and Whitney site, the thrust range of an F100-PW-220 engine is 23,770 - 29,160 lbs of force. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that at top speed the engine is putting out minimum thrust, then solving the equation we get:
(23,770 x 1524)/550 x 1.47 = 96,821
So we get 96,821 HP at top speed. I do find it hard to believe that this much power is needed to overcome drag on an f-16 at mach 2, but who knows.....
-zNo, Contois is seeking a quick settlement from Apple through the use of an injunction against iTunes.
The case looks compelling enough for a judge to possibly grant an injunction, which Apple will then want to get out of ASAP given the importance of iTunes/iPod to their lineup right now.
This is nothing more than extortion.
-zI really don't think that Windows on Mac is an insane idea at all. Its been around for years in a crappy emulated version called VirtualPC. Windows on the Mac would stop OSX porting just the same as VPC does. The real thing that stops OSX ports is (duh) the market share. Windows on the Mac lets current PC users have the option of running OSX as long as their next computer is a Mac, all without giving up full Windows compatibility. There are a lot of people that really want to buy a Mac, but can't deal with losing all of their software investment and the headache of such a transition.
-z
The PC spec is very standardized and Apple should have no problem making their Macs run windows. I don't see why they would need MS help to do that. The dev kits that Apple is selling do run Windows, and although there is no guarantee that the final products that consumers buy will as well, I think it is idiotic for Apple to break this option. This would finally get rid of the Windows compatibility problem that potential switchers face when moving to OSX. This could only help Apple's hardware sales.
-z
Apple customers would not accept another platform move.
I agree.....there has already been enough of that in recent years. The key to Apple's strategy is "universal binaries". The cocoa development platform that Apple has gotten a lot of people to switch to is very processor independent. I think that Apple should keep with the universal binary strategy and allow themselves more processor choices. A lineup that includes Intel based computers for windows compatibility and low-power portables plus dual-core G5 workstations sounds pretty robust to me. Best of both worlds. Let the buyer decide what platform works the best for their needs. If the PPC architecture shifts back to be attractive to portables, then drop them in with no hassles. If the x86 legacy really starts dragging Intel behind, then the G5s will sell better.
My vote: Give OSX the choice to be on many different platforms. Apple locking themselves into a single chip company has always caused problems, because eventually that company stops caring about them.
-z
I totally agree with all your theories about the holdup of Tiger, but I think you may have forgotten about production. Last I heard pre-orders for Tiger were outselling TurboTax during tax season, so perhaps they are making sure they have enough copies available before they go and announce a product and then tell you that you might be able to find it on store shelves in six to eight weeks. It does take time to stuff all those boxes with freshly pressed and gold mastered software CDs.....
While I would hate to disagree with Stephen Hawking, he would seem to be in disagreement with most modern philosophers of science. A single observation can only disprove a theory if you know that observation to be definitively true
No, Hawking is totally correct. If you have a theory, then no matter how many times the experiments go along with the theory, it's still a theory and there is a possibility that eventually they won't. But that first time that the experiments conflict with the theory, then the theory is bunk. This is a common tool in the mathematics world called proof by example. You cannot prove something true by one example, but you can prove something false that way.
E.g: I theorize that any two numbers added together give an answer that is even.
Counter-proof: 2+3=5.
What you are saying is that any experiment may be a collection of many theories working together, and you may not know which part has gone wrong. This is true, but most scientists employ Occam's razor to such situations and go with the simplest answer. If I think a ball is bouncy, and I throw it against a wall and it sticks, I'm not going to assume that the light from the ball has somehow been altered during the experiment.
-zHowever, two centuries later we seem to have reached a point where a substantial segment of our society believe's that raw political opinions are too dangerous and must to be vetted and sanitized through a nanny-state machine before they are fit for the masses.
No, raw political opinions are a beautiful thing and should be protected. That is what this bill is trying to do. It's trying to get rid of political agendas that are disguised as something else. It's trying to get rid of lies in campaigning. It's trying to get rid of political fraud, pure and simple.
Ads in newspapers that looks like feature articles are made that way to trick their readers. These are very devious tactics that are basically conning people into thinking that they are reading an unbiased article, when in fact they are reading a paid advertisement for whatever product is being sold. Where the money comes from to promote an opinion has (or at least should have) a very serious effect on the credibility and weight that one gives to that statement. When you go to buy a car, who are you going to trust more, your friend that owns the same model, or the car salesman at the lot?
Political campaigns that pay money to create blogs are doing so to try and trick their readers into thinking that they are reading the opinions of an individual citizen, not political spin backed by the candidate being promoted. Campaigns are realizing that blogs are very popular because people want to read about what real people think and not hear stories spun through many layers of mass media and corporate money. I think that this bill actually protects blogs because it lets people know the nature of what they are reading. Without this bill we would end up with the blog world saturated with loaded sites and nobody would trust what they were reading anymore.
You say this bill is limiting free speech but it does nothing of the sort. Campaigns are still free to say whatever they want through any venue they want, but they must disclose that they've spent money on these sites so you should take their gushing praise of the candidate with a grain of salt.
-zI would like to see what effects this has regenerative braking efficiency. Having a cell that can recharge very quickly could conceivably recover more energy from stopping the vehicle if paired with a high output generator that can produce enough drag on the wheels, even at low speeds.
These cells seem to have a lot going for them....I just hope that they aren't going to be too expensive. Nano-tech is still very new, so it may not be coincidence that there are no prices attached to this product yet. 60-second recharge or not, nobody is going to want to buy a $40,000 Kia.
-z