I guess Elon has his work cut out for him...

There are a lot of assumptions going on here. First, that anyone in the first world would even seriously consider living the "mud hut" life in the name of climate change. Second, that the ruling class in the first world would ever permit the rest of the world entry into the first world. Third, that energy consumption must be severely restricted since there are no safe ways to produce first world quantities of power absent carbon-based fuels.

The world's present energy mix, and consumption practices are built on a history of cheap, readily available fossil fuels. Properly incentivized (read: the external costs of carbon-based fuels captured), the world's production would quite naturally swing towards "green energy." Any gaps in technology would be researched and quickly filled. Efficiency can and would be found. There's no reason we can't do things differently and yet maintain a high standard of living except that entrenched interests on the production side like it the way it is.

Actually, you will find many Windows deployments via virtual machines configured to those kinds of specs. They run well for the purposes they were created. Also, your order of "true" system requirements is off. Vista was the largest resource hog between it and Windows 7 and 8 with 8 using the fewest resources. The OS has continued to back off on resource requirements. This cannot necessarily be said for the applications running on them, however, Microsoft isn't writing specs for those applications, it's writing them for the OS.

Minimum requirements are perceived by many as a measure of efficiency. If Microsoft were to increase the minimum specs, everyone would be whining about how bloated Windows is. The operating system should NOT be a major consumer of a system's resources. A system's resources should be maximally available to conserve battery power (on mobile platforms) and for running software in general. For the Linux crowd, being able to run on ancient crap is a badge of honor.

Normally I'm not in the habit of praising Microsoft. However, the fact that they have been able to expand the capabilities of their OS as much as they have from where Vista was and still hold the line of system requirements is commendable. It certainly doesn't help drive new PC sales, but it's an impressive credit to their development teams.

It has nothing to do with what is being run on these diminutive machines, it has to do with the needless complexity of supporting two architectures. The end user wouldn't know the difference, but it would lighten the burden for all software developers whether writing Windows, or software targeting Windows.

According to YouTube cavity checks are standard fare so I wouldn't rule it out...

You know, I always thought the fences they keep building along the Mexican border should have been located a bit farther north.

Oh enlightened one, if only people of the world might sit at your feet and learn all that you know...

Power companies have gas or oil powered plants to compensate during peek usage or other times when additional power is required. I'm not sure the point you're trying to make. I'm suggesting that power companies take advantage of market trends by adding solar installation and maintenance businesses. Kind of like how some natural gas companies offer appliance maintenance.

I fail to see a problem with local/green energy production. Power distribution infrastructure is terribly vulnerable, horribly inefficient, and more often than not attached to a chimney.

Too many industries have the philosophy of "if it's broke, don't fix it." It's time to develop and employ 21st century technology, join up or stand aside. There's no reason power companies can switch their business model up a bit and adapt. Perhaps add SolarCity style businesses to their portfolio.

Boeing was going to get one of the contracts regardless. They have the favor of Congress and a very long history in aerospace. Sierra Nevada had to compete with SpaceX to which they fail miserably. At this point compared to SpaceX, Sierra Nevada has proven precious little to NASA and are asking for substantially more money. Not only is SpaceX already successfully delivering and returning payloads for NASA but their proposal for manned transport is merely an evolution of their already flying equipment. Sierra Nevada hasn't even gotten to space yet with a test vehicle. That isn't expected to happen until Nov. 2016.

More likely SpaceX bid exactly, and Boeing overbid, but I guess we'll see in a few years.

For Sierra Nevada it costs little to challenge the contracts. For NASA, choosing Boeing and SpaceX made sense. Boeing has the favor of Congress, and a very long history in aerospace. SpaceX is the young upstart with a startling reach that continues to make good on promises yet has zero of the inefficiencies endemic to old fat cats like Boeing. To date, Sierra Nevada has proven precious little with expected costs well more than SpaceX even if not as much as Boeing. That Boeing was going to win a contract was a given for many reasons, Sierra Nevada had to compete not with them but with SpaceX, at which they fail miserably.

That would add inefficiencies to the process as well as limit investment in long term higher capability solutions in favor of playing it safe.

At this point a certain amount of customization is generally required to be made for the payloads going up. Some missions offer more flexibility than others, but generally you have to know the launch system ahead of time, not pick it after the fact.

From the launch company's perspective, they can only reach as far as they can be assured they can afford. From the investor's perspective the chance of ROI is riskier when a company has the promise of one paying job, instead of say ten paying jobs. NASA can be criticized for many things, but I'm not sure this is one of them. It's rather hard to have a buyer's market with out adequate competition. NASA is fostering the creation of that competition with the COTS and C3PO programs.

There seems to be a perception that these contract batches are the only ones that will be offered, they are not. There are plenty more contracts that will be up for bid in the future. I can guess at reasons for which Boeing was chosen over Sierra Nevada for this round but it doesn't mean Sierra Nevada is excluded from future rounds. Call it a hunch but given that SpaceX is offering the same services for almost half the cost of Boeing, Boeing probably isn't going to fare quite so well in the next round should they SpaceX succeed at delivering. Unless politicians intervene, SpaceX will be setting the bar for future contracts.

Iowan law presently prohibits manufactures from obtaining a dealer's license.

The limited scope of government (federal at least) is a primary contributor to much of the bulls**t taking place within the states. Ironically, whenever citizens are grieved by their local governments they expect Mr. Obama (or current) to save them. Not Congress, not their state government, and definitely not their municipal legislators. A quick scan of the "We the People" petition site proves just how little people understand the governments presiding over them.