Let's assume the best-case scenario -- that the entertainment industry is dying to get broadcast rights for the Mars Reality TV show and will pay top dollar to do so.

What constitutes "top dollar" for that industry? i.e. how much could they afford to pay if they really wanted to?

I'm not sure how to answer that, but the biggest TV event I'm aware of is the World Cup, which brought in $4 billion to FIFA last year.

Would $4 billion be enough for a Mars colonization program? According to this article, they'd still be $2 billion short.

I don't think I can convince you with further argument, so I'll just leave you with this paragraph from the "History of Electric Vehicles" page on Wikipedia (see the page itself for citations):

No, but they were the first to sell an EV that made non-geeks' pulses quicken. The vehicles sold before that were more of the "eat your vegetables" variety, and thus doomed to be money-losing niche vehicles, useful only as arguments against the viability of the electric vehicle market.

Sure, but you can't get to the mass market without starting somewhere viable. Previous attempts to start at the low end failed (see: EV-1, RAV4 EV), and failures don't help the EV market grow.

That's an assertion only -- I don't see any evidence to back it up. Before Tesla's successes, no other companies were marketing a desirable electric car, and there was little evidence that any of them had much interest in doing so in the future.

Sure, the EV market would have caught on anyway, decades from now, after gas prices rose high enough that almost nobody could to afford to drive a traditional car anymore; but that's a rather grim scenario that I think we are well-served to avoid.

Them, and Tesla, and everyone else who will buy an electric car that wouldn't have existed without Tesla's demonstration of how to profitably sell EVs, and all the other car companies that can now take advantage of the technology Tesla developed.

I think it already has -- the model S showed the auto industry that there is a market for electric cars, if those cars provide a good customer experience. Before Tesla, the general thought in the car industry was that electric cars would have to be cheaper than gasoline cars in order to sell, but that idea never worked -- because it was impossible to price an electric car that cheap without stripping it down into an unsellable golf-cart. Tesla demonstrated that the way to sell electric cars wasn't to make them cheaper than gasoline cars, but rather to make them better. Now we have other manufacturers (BMW, Nissan, GM) competing to get into that market, and the development-and-competition ball is rolling. The next step is for competition and volume production to bring prices down, just like they did for gasoline cars in the early 20th century.

Perhaps, if you knew which companies to throw the development money at. But that's a hard thing to predict reliably (witness the long succession of "visionary" electric car companies whose products went nowhere, despite significant investment). This way, the customers decide which electric car designs are worth supporting and which are not.

This year. Unlike certain whiners, the government is thinking long-term.

Because the government has a long-term goal of reducing carbon emissions and reducing America's reliance on oil. Subsidies for electric cars help develop battery technology and other infrastructure necessary for making that transition, sooner and less disruptively than the market would manage on its own.

The upside for you is that when the shit finally hits the fan regarding oil consumption (either due to geopolitical problems, peak oil, or the effects of global warming becoming intolerable), you will be much more likely at that point to have the option of buying an affordably priced electric car to serve your transportation needs. That will be less painful for you than paying $20/gallon for gas, or going without a car -- your other two options in a scenario where the electric cars market was not well developed in advance of our need for it.

That's assuming that (a) Tesla continues to make only high-end/expensive cars, and (b) that the (now saturated) market for high-end/expensive Teslas is insufficient to support the company. The former is possible, but only if Tesla doesn't follow through on their stated goals with the Model 3 (and presumably, other cheaper models thereafter). The latter is also possible, although that problem doesn't seem to stop other high-end auto companies from staying in business.

Now who is being the naive optimist, eh bucko? ;^)

That's why I bought three dozen of the tiny $39.95 model. I figure if I send them all to your house simultaneously, at least some of them will get through. I've programmed them all to try to land on your head; game on!

Maybe, if you have a good head for business and are willing and able to put in the necessary time and effort.

Most people (including me), would not enjoy forming a startup and would almost certainly not profit from it. We'd almost certainly not profit much from the lottery-ticket route either, but at least that option is quick, easy, and enjoyable.

Is it good that people have the freedom to make bad decisions? Yes.

Is it good that people then go ahead and actually make bad decisions? No. (at least, it's not good for them)

Maybe, but... I'm trying to think of the things I could buy (or do) with $500 million that I couldn't also buy (or do) with "only" $40 million. I'm not coming up with a whole lot. Moon base, maybe?

You might be right, but CSP does have its advantages; cheaper materials for one (at least until PV cell prices come down a good deal more), and more importantly, the ability to continue generating power after sunset (or when clouds pass overhead) by using heat that was stored up earlier during the day. The heated salt solution acts like a huge, inexpensive battery in that respect.

1) Purchase three AirDog drones
2) Velcro-strap each drone's follow-me remote onto the next AirDog drone
3) Press the "launch" button on all three remotes simultaneously
4) Enjoy the resulting interpretive dance

Yes, to both. CSP has been known to singe/kill birds that fly into the concentrated light.

OTOH, the number of birds killed that way is insignificant compared to the number killed by house cats, or by flying into windows. It's a non-issue except for people who want to argue using emotional appeals instead of rational cost/benefit evaluation.

It would take a swing in public opinion such that the people overwhelmingly demand that it be dismantled (and vote accordingly).

Of course, that would require that the public is willing to accept that some acts of terrorism will probably occur that might (at least theoretically) have been prevented via mass surveillance.

Given that, I'm guessing it isn't too likely. (and even if it was dismantled, it would all be brought back by popular demand shortly after the next Very Bad Thing happened)

Of course, he also treated the law as suggestions instead of law. I have no sympathy at all. :P