I just don't know why we have to keep on waiting for an electric car we can buy off in the future. Electric cars aren't new. This isn't about innovation. There is no new technology required to deliver electric cars. Just retool the factories and get started. Now that the government owns a big part of GM why not have a cheap electric car for 2010?

How is funding a boutique luxury car manufacturer at the rate of half a billion similar to funding interstates, military, postal service, etc.? Tesla does not even hope to provide shared infrastructure or essential services to the country as do these programs. I don't get it.

I'm anti-subsidy for luxury car manufacturers. Starting at $49,900 -- bah! How about spending a fraction of this to rip out the engine of a Chevy Aveo and put in an electric motor? How about an electric car people can actually buy? Innovation not required!

16 years ago when I worked for Circuit City they had a similar procedure. Sales counselors (as we were called) weren't explicitly instructed to deny the product to customers who didn't want the "cheese" (aka extended service plan or ESP) - but we too were subject to management scolding and eventual firing if we didn't meet our quotas. So there was a significant incentive to tell customers who didn't want the ESP, especially on a promotional item with a low spiff (aka commission) that they should either buy something else or maybe wait around awhile while the sales person ignores you until you leave. From the sales person's perspective, why bother selling a laptop that pays the sales person a dollar or 2 (if it's on sale) and reduces his or her ESP percentage? The only way out is to lie about stock, sell lots of overpriced accessories, or upsell to a higher margin unit with a higher spiff.

Let's remember how important it is to have a president who is not overly insulated by yes-men. He needs direct communication with the outside world. Sure we could lock him in a lead box under the Pentagon if our top priority was keeping him "safe" but what good is that?

I'm not presuming anything was installed on school computers. Did I say that? I'm only assuming that some sort of computer is being used for coursework of some kind - presumably it's the kid's computer. I'm just saying, I can understand why the teacher would be annoyed if she feels like she has to deal with Linux support issues and she's not trained to do that. Obviously her reaction is over the top, but I can also imagine why she would be annoyed. Heck if I had a room of 30 kids asking me anything I might start sending illogical, angry letters all over the place.

I love Linux as much as the next geek, however, I can sort of understand her point of view, even if she doesn't represent herself very well. If a kid wants to play with Linux and learn about how the computer works then s/he should do it, but if it prevents the computer from working properly with coursework or software provided by the school, then that could be a problem. I can see how it would be highly annoying to a teacher, who really has better things to do than to support PCs, to have to explain why some document won't display properly, or something won't work exactly as it should on Linux. In a setting where spending any time at all on helping kids with how their laptops work is a huge distraction I can see how encouraging students to install Linux would be a very big disruption. Some will disagree, and it's better than it used to be, but I still wouldn't advise my mother to replace Windows with HeliOS or Ubuntu or any other Linux. The reason people choose Mac and Windows isn't entirely marketing and bundling, it's also because they tend to be easier to get support for - or even for novices to figure out.