with banking and PCI compliance I don't know if it is really that simple.

I mean let me be clear, I'm not saying it is a bad idea to go open-source, or look for options beyond MS ... I'm just saying I'm not seeing how moving from one OS to another solves their software/hardware synchronization problem given that fact that they are themselves independent of each other and driven by different life-cycles realities [shrug].

But that same argument can be used right now with the XP ATM's ... until the hardware breaks those can run "forever". Well that is except for security updates which any old UNIX GUI would need as well. you can't get around the need for security updating. So then it is a question of who will perform that function. with XP is was MS, with [Linux Distro] it is [Linux Distro Owner] and they will both EOL a distro at some point and stop providing security updates.

At least that is my question ... what am I missing?

I guess I'm missing the difference. Linux distros and kernels do indeed go EOL. When that happens there are no more security updates and backporting right? Well how is that different than what MS is doing right now with XP? In either case they will still have to face the fact that the OS isn't going to be supported anymore and will require them to upgrade software.

Or are they thinking they will go it alone and continue to update their Linux distro/kernel just because it is open source? Do they really think they are qualified to do that? Or is the hope that they can spend money to keep the OS in long-term-support status?

First

And make them wear a giant red "V" on their clothes

Even if they were asking for a new set of locks, your answer is still on point: they can charge a reasonable fee but they can't deny you. But perhaps that is just where fails ;-)

they deserve to fail miserably and go down in flames.

Obviously anecdotes mean nothing, but I'm always puzzled by comments like this. I've got a several year old Vertex 2 that started as my win7 OS drive and is now doing duty as a Plex Media Server app drive. I also have a Vertex 3 as my win7 OS drive. Finally I have another Vertex 2 in my laptop, though I admit right now it gets very little use. Both have been operating with no trouble to include a number of trouble free firmware updates.

Yes OCZ does seem to have a higher rate of failure than most other SSD's (that alone would be enough had I known it back in the day) but it isn't like they are failing in droves. They are still at least as reliable as an HDD. And for the price they fit a niche. I'm not running a server farm so I don't need that level of reliability. That is why I have backups.

As to them going bankrupt ... well that is more a case of mismanagement than products that suck. Though I suppose their push capture the market via ultra-low prices couldn't be sustained long enough to work and so now they are suffering the consequences. So yeah, poor management decisions [shrug].

You might want to look a little more into your assertion that oil came into its own without a ton of federal help. And in case you want to specifically focus on the real no kidding "birth" of the petroleum revolution that is fine. But make no mistake oil has and still does get a TON of federal help. I think a lot of people would be fine cutting alternative energy subsidies if only the petroleum ones were cut as well.

The problem as I understand it though is that the US petroleum industry "needs" all that help in order to compete with the rest of the world. I can't say for sure if that assessment of "need" is really valid, but non-US petroleum production and refining does get some non-trivial level of government support and so it would harm the US if they did not do the same in order to compete.

So given that, you have to ask the question, "how can a nascent industry like solar/wind/storage/any other renewable" have a chance to compete in a market where the entrenched incumbent has the advantage of both a lock on the market and government support?" Easy answer, it cannot.

As to picking winners and losers, that only applies where the government is specifically choosing a technology/company to the exclusion of others. I'm pretty sure that has only happened in one case; Ethanol and specifically corn-based Ethanol. Barring that, or in case we have been a little too specific, then the easy solution is you fund basic research,the kind that is high risk-long lead and not suitable for most commercial ventures, and you create pots of money that can be applied for (loans, grants, whatever) by anyone looking to demonstrate commercial-sized production.

Everything below here is more a response to other posts above yours, so if my comments don't apply to you, please don't take offense :)

Everyone likes to point to Solyndra and say, "SEE!!! That is what is wrong with renewable energy and picking winners and losers!!!" No, that is just what happens when you decide to spend money to find the right solution out of many. Some fail, some succeed, and some fail only to be picked up by smarter/better/better-timed people to finally succeed. And while Solyndra itself might also be an example of bad politics (I think the final post-mortem showed it actually wasn't), it is also proof that politics should be kept out of that sort of thing. The government should not feel the need to find a poster child for what amounts to good general policy of a country investing in its energy future.

Right. And because they cannot deny coverage, AND reality means many people cannot pay for that emergency service, it means we should be REALISTIC about how we manage a sustainable system. That means not allowing people to be de facto covered via the most expensive health care possible, emergency services, without demanding that they contribute, upfront and for cheaper services than emergency care. Or how about preventing unwanted pregnancies via inexpensive contraception so that society doesn't have to bare the burden of an expensive person.

As to the large banking institutions ... That is because large banking institutions are not the same as healthcare. If you don't know that already I can't explain it to you. But I'll give you a hint: when was the last time you had to have an emergency banking procedure? And when you did, how much time did you have and many banks did you research before obtaining service for your life-or-death emergency banking procedure?

Sadly the financial bail-out, for all the ways it should have been done differently (like exerting more control over banks receiving support and consequences for people), was at its core necessary to prevent more damage. It sucks but that is the truth. We made our bed via deregulation and we had no choice but to solve the short term problem of the liquidity markets freezing up. The important question is not should we or shouldn't we have done it (or how should we have done it differently)? The question is, what are we doing now so we don't ever have to do it again!?!?! I was appalled that the banks were not allowed to fail. I was even more appalled that they COULD NOT be allowed to fail, and I'm down right disgusted that for the most part they STILL CANNOT be allowed to fail.

and I'd like to put in a plug for Hugh Howey's "I, Zombie". Hugh has made a good name for himself in the self-publishing arena and his success continues to snowball. Not the least of which is due to his amazing stories like Wool, Moly Fyde, and my personal favorite the underdog Halfway Home, but also because he seems to be a genuinely good guy.

As for I, Zombie ... it is not a human story about zombies. It is a zombie story about being a zombie. Check it out.

Then start an annual odo inspection and use existing auto mechanic / dealers as the inspection points with huge penalties for fraud.

I'm not a fan of Virginia's safety inspections because I know they are pointless, but at least they let you do them, along with emissions inspections, at any number of local mechanic shops. So the infrastructure is built in and usually pretty speedy. That is as opposed to NJ inspections which at least in the 80's was a huge state run building with long lines that was dreaded by all.

Or Ohio who decided that the best way to start their emissions program in the late 90's (to avoid EPA sanctions for polluted counties) was to build from scratch an entire government run infrastructure at a huge cost. That was despite MANY studies showing they could do it cheaper, faster AND more effective by deploying mobile sniffers and literally paying people to fix their cars / buying out very old lost cause vehicles. Basically take care of the 10% of the cars making 90% of the pollution and let everyone else go about their day.

Anyway the point is, it does NOT have to be that hard or expensive to do an annual odo check. As to the accounting burden, it doesn't need to be DMV, it would be the treasury since they have to incorporate it into their tax system and all they need to know is one single number; miles driven. You know, EXACTLY like they have to do it using any other method of counting mileage.

Ideally they'ed even let you pre-pay with withholdings and let you adjust those withholdings based on expected miles per year. Don't own a car, don't withhold at all. Own two cars and drive 30k/yr, you might want to let them know that so you don't have sticker-shock when it comes time to pay that gas tax.

separate e-meter on in-home car chargers, tax on public car chargers, solves the taxing car electricity problem.

That is assuming the much more obvious odo reading isn't instituted as you and others have mentioned. And as someone else said, for states without annual inspections ... START ONE. If all you are doing is checking the ODO then it should be very fast and not all that costly. Incorporate existing auto shops for infrastructure and huge penalties for fraud and you're done.

Worried about "sticker shock" having to pay an end of year gas tax bill? Make it part of witholdings and give people the ability to adjust it based on the number of cars / estimated annual miles just like we do now with federal W-4.

Maybe surprised, maybe not. I'll concede they happen often. But of course my point is that elective procedures are not proof that health care can function in a pure market system.

You're father-in-law's case approaches the level of "elective" from the stand point that even is his surgery was ultimately "required" for him to live / have a quality of life, he obviously had the time to do research. He also had the resources to travel far and wide to find the best outcome:cost ratio. Most people do not have the resources to do that, and more important they do not have the time in an urgent / emergency care situation.