Yes, we certainly have been over this. All the windmills in the world amount to 4% of worldwide electricity output. How much more can we get? Not every place with people has year-round wind. So you need serious investment in transmission and storage, areas which are currently already strained under existing load. Can it be done? Unproven.

Large is obviously to be taken in the context of global warming (how much more obvious can the context be?). Individual machinery is not large on this scale.

We've been over this. Cordemais produces at most 22.8 TWh per year assuming year-round 100% production with zero downtime. The 2006 report, page 9, exact same table, lists 60.5 TWh of coal-based production for the year 2006. Do I need to belabor the obvious and point out that 22.8 is less than 60.5? Cordemais alone does not produce more power than what the report claims for coal power stations. Give it up already, you're just flat-out wrong.

I think you vastly overestimate how many x86 apps can be rebuilt. Even Intel itself has to go to absurd lengths to engineer bug-for-bug binary compatibility into successive generations of x86 chips, precisely because it's so hard to get the industry to recompile. People always complain about Linux because it lacks Photoshop ... well, where is Photoshop for ARM? You speak of servers; where is Oracle's database software for ARM?

It's also not clear if Intel can succeed in making x86 chips save power. At least they're really trying now, which is more than they were doing before. But all that x86 instruction set baggage really bites them. It's something they can ignore in the server arena, but low-power is a different beast. Now I'm not saying they can't do it; Intel has great people and they do great things when they really try. But it will be hard.

I don't know what you're talking about but in the USA many public school districts are strapped for cash and the educational discount does not quite go all the way in making the Surface Pro price-competitive with Chromebooks (how can it?).

The Surface Pro 3 requires compromising on price. It's much more expensive than any of the alternatives under discussion, especially if you want basic functionality such as a keyboard.

The only problem is that Windows RT is doomed. Windows is far too dependent on x86 compatibility. If it can't run existing legacy Windows programs, then for most people there's no point. Without backward compatibility, you'll have to switch over to completely new software anyway, and by that point for the vast majority of people an iPad is a more attractive proposition.

I'll go one further. The real cost is not licensing, and it is not CALs. Everyone knows the real cost is LIABILITY. Horror stories abound of BSA licensing audits gone amok. Funny how Microsoft's Total Cost of Ownership studies always ignore the cost of license compliance, and always ignore the risk of multi-million dollar BSA penalties for even the most minor infractions.

I avoid all non-free software from BSA member organizations. If the BSA comes knocking, they get the door slammed on them until they come back with a court-issued warrant.

Worthless? Blatant lie. Where did I say wind was worthless? Quote me please.

You will fail. I never said wind was worthless. Even a computer could do this. Hint: Ctrl-F.

I never even said anything that could be interpreted as equivalent to saying wind was worthless. Again, if you think otherwise, quote me. Go ahead.

Wind power today is 4% of global electricity production. This amount is worthwhile, but NOT A COMPLETE SOLUTION, and whether or not wind can go much beyond present production remains unproven. What part of this complex sentence do you not understand?

The 2006 report says exactly what I said it says, and you know full well that it does.

Since you can read French, I direct your attention to page 9 from the 2006 report.

Production totale brute d’électricité (2006): 450.2 TWh (Nucléaire)
Total: 574.5 TWh

In percentage terms: 78.4%

Stop it with the outright falsehoods. I am right.

Wow, more accusations. If you want to get all accusatory, let's take you to task for YOUR lies:

1. I can read French very well, thank you very much. Lie.

2. I have no idea what Party you keep referring to. I do not live in Russia. I do not live in the USA. I do not live in Europe. I cannot debate straw men. Identify "The Party" to which you refer if you want me to comment intelligently on this bogeyman.

3. I am no longer committing any deceptions, yet you still have not rebutted in any way the fundamental argument that nuclear power has a far higher output ceiling than wind, all the meanwhile accusing me of lying. Stop grasping at past straw men.

4. "As for the name calling, you've been doing either all of it or pretty damned close to all of it." Direct quote from you. Blatant lie, and you got called out on it hard. Note: arguing that your name-calling was justified does not mean your name-calling never happened.

5. "I very much doubt 75% is the case apart from a absolute yearly maximum" Direct quote from you, which you have still not yet unambiguously repudiated.

Stop attacking me and give me a good reason why we should not pursue nuclear power more than wind power. All I hear is crickets so far.

Honestly, the arguments I put forth apply just as well to a 75% level as to a 100% level, so no, I don't think it's a big deal. But even if it is a big deal, I've admitted wrong on the 100% point about 20 times already, how many more times will it take before you move on?

I have already admitted my earlier mistakes. Am I now misleading anybody in any way?

Now that we have degenerated to arguing about name-calling, I'm sorry, but names matter.

Look, I can take name-calling, even warranted name-calling, but I will not stand for you accusing me of doing all the name-calling when in reality you are doing all the name-calling. That's a blatant bald-faced lie.