Expandable at least. You can plug in two standard SO-DIMM chips, one m-SATA drive and one 2.5" 7mm drive. It also has 14.4" full-HD screen, big enough to use its full resolution (not retina-like ultra-high pixel density where image has to be enlarged 2x, so you get half the resolution). I'm curious about its reliability.
I'm using Asus UX-32VD which has similiar characteristics (notably it has one standard SO-DIMM slot and one standard 7mm 2.5" drive, despite its slim ultrabook-like look). Sometimes I need a bit more power and bigger screen (being "in the field", not at my desk), so standard PC does not count. I would like to see expandable 15"-16" ultrabook with 2576x1600 resolution (three columns of code plus sidebar!) and quad core processor. Ideally with one or two mSATA slots and one 2.5" bay and at least two SO-DIMM slots. Pixel density would be the same as in UX-31, so with good quality IPS display one would use every last bit of it. Something like Asus UX-51 but with better resolution and expandable. This would be terribly setup for techies, programmers in particular. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of such product - unlike desktop PCs where one can built one's own system from scratch, everyone is on vendors mercy when it comes to notebooks or ultrabooks.
Even if they try their best to do this. Every article, blog post, every news program always reflects point of view of whoever created this content. Even if such person tries his/hers best to be as objective as possible, it is impossible to avoid bias.
The only truth is what you see yourself which is of course impossible for practical reasons. The second best approximation is to snort though raw footage and original materials. This is very time consuming task and it is also impractical for anyone who is not a professional investigative journalist.
This brings us to preprocessed and prepackaged information spewed by either mainstream or alternative media. What works for me is to assume that they all have a lot of spin in their content and that every spin doctor uses at least partially true arguments supporting his/her position at first, is quiet about arguments contrary to his/her position and resorts to lies and fabrications only if all other alternatives fail. So I'm trying to read arguments of all adversary sides (US media, european media, russian media, chinese media, iranian media) and then use my head to sort out things - pretty much 'Scherlock style' deduction. Unfortunately this requires some time and effort, which most of people do not want to expend.
Very unpleasant thing about this is that western media perform very poorly in this regard, especially since run-up to Iraq war. I attribute this to general situation and 'lack of good arguments' on western side - which directly correlates to our latest economic (2008 crash and afterwards) and social (rise of police state) troubles. We now see things going from bad to worse: UK blocking PressTV, UK government forcing Guardian to destroy its computers, now UK PM threatening all newspapers if they do not obey his demands. The same in the US: Obama prosecuting and jailing more than twice as many whistleblowers as all his predecessors combined, US blocking RT, huge assault on journalists, with some of them propably murdered by government thugs to silence and send a message (Michael Hastings). We are certainly not better in this regard than government controlled eastern media and I suspect we might even crossed point of no return in our way have only to strictly controlled, totalitarian media spewing nothing but lies and propaganda.
There was something called "focus fusion" that utilized boron-hygrogen fusion but I'm not sure it did work out well. Regardless, I'm less and less confident if it makes sense. Solar cells and wind turbines are becoming cheaper every year and have passed nuclear energy cost (in $/kWh) some time ago (was it 2010? I don't remember...). Like computers, those devices are becoming cheap commodity and are on their way to take carbon in terms of dollars per kWh. In other worlds, renewables (along with smart grids and energy conservation techniques) are on their way to become new "traditional" energy sources. Bucky Fuller was right after all: nuclear energy (in all its forms) is only marginally better than fossil fuels, renewables take the play to whole new level. We've just missed it for some time because fossil was too cheap (to be frank - partly thanks to stealing fossil fuels from 3-rd world countries by western powers)
Having said that, it does not mean we shouldn't do any research in this area. Basic research is THE basis of achievements of our civilization but please call spades the spades. Don't think it will magically solve our energy problems but there is a chance it will become breakthrough in many ways we don't expect.