A lot of people believe we need huge infrastructure changes and way more power plants to charge electric cars. This is simply not true. A car sitting in your garage charging at night does not need any more wires than we currently have. It is no more electricity than running an air conditioner, which you do not need nearly as much during the night than day. Power plants operate at far less capacity than you think. They in fact operate only at an average of 40% capacity. The only time they even come close to capacity is the very highest demand day of the year, peak load. The grid dampens out a lot of the load as well. And we are a very far away from having enough electric vehicles requiring charging to make this even a conversation piece.

Graphene is a matrix of carbon atoms with a length and width as long as you want to make it (theoretically) but only one atom thick. This enables you to access the carbon atom very easily to either imbed other elements like Lithium, Silicone, or Magnesium which will hold/release the charge. Otherwise you end up with a lot of unusable, inaccessible sites as the carbon atoms are buried in a 3 dimensional structure.

I have no clue how they would wind graphene.

A flywheel stores energy for sure, but so does a battery in a hybrid. Same concept, different technology. Not sure the efficiency of a fly wheel though. The conversion of using the hybrid motor as a generator during breaking, and then as a motor during acceleration is about 60%. Considering the energy used for acceleration is about 30% of the total energy consumed by the car, the net is you improve your gas mileage by an average of 24%. Wind resistance is about a third, and rolling friction is about a third, making up the rest of the energy consumption. I am sure there is a bit in there for air conditioning.

The calculation for kilowatts and equivalent miles per gallon is correct, 10,000 watts is equivalent to about 1 gallon on the road, not KW/BTU. This 10kw/gallon does take in to account the ratio of electric motor efficiency to gasoline engine efficiency, that is actual energy consumed turned in to energy at the wheels. The ration you mentioned where an electric motor is about 80% efficient and the gasoline engine somewhere around 30% is correct. That is why it only takes 10 kw of energy instead of 33 kw to get the same yield of power at the wheels. I rounded the number to 10 kw by the way, It actually about 10,400. And this is too varies by the car.

Charge in minutes, but what you have to realize is in order to do this, you have to have an outlet capable of providing a lot of watts in a hurry.

It takes around 10,000 watts to yield the equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline. If your electric car has a range of 200 miles, and gets the equivalent of 30 miles per gallon if it were a gasoline driven car, you would need 200/30*10,000 or 66,000 watts. For a 220 volt system, the current would be 300 amps to charge it in an hour. For practical purposes, a 30 amp circuit, 200 volts would charge the car in 10 hours. 60 amps in 5 hours. 60 amps is pretty high as most houses only have 100 amp service.

But the good thing if your electric rates are 12 cents/kwh like mine, the cost of electricity for 200 miles would be 66,000/1000*.12 or about $8.50 where as gasoline would be 6 gallons times $3 or $18.

ok, a lot of people have been quoting this 92 million people unemployed number. I even heard Ted Cruz quote this number. Yes, the US census does have this number. But, I find this and a lot of other numbers used to be used to fit what ever story people want to tell.

So, the 92 million number. I looked it up, and guess what, this number includes retired people and students. Hmmm. Why would I use this number when talking about unemployed then. I am retired, and am certainly not looking for work, neither is my wife. And my two grandkids in college are students do work a bit, but are certainly not looking for full time work. So why do they quote this number? Makes for a good story.

Also, the same people say this number has grown every year for the past 20, and is the largest in history. Well, yes, the biggest reason is that the number of retired people has risen from 53 million to 71 million in the past 10 years, and will continue to grow quickly as the baby boomers retire. But you can bet politicians will not explain this when quoting what will soon be 100 million.

Agree with Capture48. Go for ram, which in the case of the new IMacs, 32 gb. I have a 16 gb older Imac, and every once in a while I run out of RAM. Particularly if I have a bunch of stuff open, like CS, Bridge, and HDR software. The way I can tell is if Topaz won't open, which also takes a lot of RAM.

But I tell you what, for the small increment in price, I would be buying the higher end video card, and only 5% of the cost of the Imac. Same with the I7 vs I5.

I bought the PNY 256gb, 90 mb/sec. It works just fine on my 5dMKIII. This is a SC card, not CF. It is only $109. Now why such a big size, well, actually it's in the just because category. There is no way I will ever come close to filling it up, at least not with todays mb pictures. I can easily get 10,000 pictures in RAW on this card, 3x that with jpeg. I guess if I did video a lot more, it would be valuable. Anyway, couldn't pass up the price. The 64 gb version is only $33, the 256 is still available at $109. This is on Amazon.
I also have a 16gb extreme pro, which I use for HDR shooting, as it takes up to 7 shots in a row, filling up the cache, and taking some time to write the files if I do multiple sets of pictures.

I would like to try the 810, but it doesn't really matter. I have too much money in Canon lens for my 5DIII, so the chances of switching is negligible, particularly since I am just a casual photographer, not a professional, meaning having to make money.

I could easily sell everything, and buy the 810 and some lenses, but not sure it matters. I am quite pleased with the pictures I get from the 5DIII. I don't do movies. One thing I have not done is tried doing inside pictures with a much higher ISO. I tend to stay at ISO 1000.

Have both, the 16-35 2.8 gives better image quality mostly because it is a faster lens. Unfortunately mine quite auto focusing a couple of months back. I can still use as a manual lens. I will have to see what it would take to get it fixed. I didn't use it much though as I went to a 24 mm prime, which is mid range, and a 1.4. For indoor shots it is great. I can simply move in or out a bit to get the image size right or crop later. The 24mm takes great shots. And the speed of the lens is by far better for indoor shots. I rarely use ISO above 800 even in darker rooms at home. I also don't use a flash very often with this lens.

Make sure you can get parts for the auger feed mechanism. A friend of mine has a pellet stove, the auger failed not once but twice over a number of year. He is unable to find the parts to fix the auger itself which came apart. I guess it can be replicated somewhere, but aa lot easier if you can simply get new parts.

Not sure about the comment above about app availability. If thousands of apps for the Mac are not enough, not sure what you want then. I have been a pc and mac owner, and would not buy a pc, particularly with Windows 8. As for software, again, plenty for the Mac. I just find a Mac a lot easier to use. Photo software readily available for either, Microsoft Office is as well. I don't think I have ever had an issue getting Mac software, oh, perhaps virus software, but then who needs that with a Mac.

Mac or Windows? If Mac, and if you see the name of the ad software, like "admaxvc", look it up on the internet, like through Bing, and you will get instructions to remove the extension's responsible. I had it, worked great. Also, as others have mentioned, adblock works great.

One of the biggest problems people have with cameras or many things is that you buy something short of the best, and then have to live with "I wish I had bought the next model up". In the long run, you might end up spending more for incremental purchases then if you just buy the top of the line first. Well, that was my excuse for buying the 5d III. Actually, I had a Canon 20D a long time ago, even before the 5D came out originally. Still have it in fact, never use it though.

By the way, the same will go for lenses. You can get lenses for a lot less money than the L series, but will then want the L lens anyway. I simply save up, wait a bit, then buy the best lenses for the camera I can buy.

As for being too much camera for a beginner, well, if you can read, are reasonably passionate about it, you can really learn very quickly. It's really not all that difficult. What is difficult with any camera is the actual shooting of pictures itself. Finding the tricks of lighting, also content, what makes for a good picture, are more trial and error. For instance, taking a picture of a scene, only to find that in the foreground you have a garbage can in the picture.

Haha, and then you have the post processing software. Might as well sign up for the monthly CS6 subscription. I did, and it is quite a feat to learn the tricks of post processing. But again, if you have the passion, you will learn. It makes for some amazing pictures.

It may, or it may not. Never have so much in any one area where a crash kills your entire financial well being. Put limit orders on things to help prevent a major event from killing your holdings. Diversify. All the good things they tell you in Investing 101, but so many ignore because they get greedy.