Why didn't they go the other way: give the thing lots of storage (cheaper now than when Wii came out) and dump the disk drive? I'm wondering if this could have been a nice little box for those who hate discs lying around...

At this stage in development, efficiency isn't a big deal , unless it can be proven early on that it will always be too horrible compared to alternatives...and that only counts if there are alternatives.
What is interesting/important is it's potential as (pointed out lots of times in the comments) a steam engine that avoids big boilers and has the same kick as an ICE since it uses the same mechanical layout. Any other heat-driven engines that can do the same? same kick, same overhead?
reading comments seems to say no so far: Stirling engines don't have the variable torque output for use in cars. Steam boilers are too heavy and involve piping steam around the system (dangerous and complex). Even converting the sunlight directly to electricity runs into storage problems (batteries aren't big enough yet) . I've seen come comments that heated oil may actually be a good way to store solar energy...not sure if it beats batteries, but worth a look.
This is another tool in the toolbox if it works. Is there anything that says this won't?

So, is there some problem with posting links to G+? I saw the comment, checked his posts and read his comments...then realized the article link pointed to someone's blog....why not go straight to the source?

Or what health benefits they have that we don't....

maybe they will be able to eat less with power all around....

How about an electric grid above the cars with a metal tongue to pick up the current? Problem solved.

unfortunately for the same reasons people who hate facebook and have many IM accounts join them: peer pressure. It can be lonely sticking to your principals sometimes...
:)

So....I wonder if we knew "all" of pi, it could be used to represent all the data in the universe. The we'd just need the pointers to pick bits of data out of it. cool...

Basic question on RDP: can it support sending only one window instead of a desktop? I seem to remember hearing it could, but haven't ran across how to do it without involving Citrix or some other software...

So, Wayland will allow running Wayland apps on a machine with no display and sending the output to a machine with a display? If it does, then I'm more interested. Everything I read so far says it will not be able to do that, or will require some kind of dummy Wayland desktop to be running on the same machine with the app...

Or a sign of a good design, Just a thought...

How does the implementation reflect on my comment? Not disagreeing, just honestly wondering how your comment relates to mine...

No it doesn't. no it's not. No it's not, no it's not. And, no it can't. (all you are solving is half of what X11 can do: running a remote app on a local screen. The other half is missing.)

People claiming vnc/RDP functionality is the same as X11 remote display/network transparency are extremely uninformed.

using caps since no one seems to get it no matter how it's worded...sign of frustration at the reading incomprehension of lots of posters

Not if Wayland replaces Xorg, which seems to be the goal of the project. IF someone, anyone, can tell me I will be able to run a "Wayland app" from one machine to another screen, then fine. Haven't heard that yet. I've been told that you can do this, but the answer always involves thigns that trick the app in displaying to something that can be copied over the network like I deal with in Windows. This is not the funtionality I have now and which I don't want to give up.

If VNC/RDP is you answer to what X11 does, you don't know what X11 does. X11 network function is much better and more useful than those kinds of remote access. I use both everyday and I can tell you X11 remote display is easier, better designed and will only be more useful (given proliferation of screens to display on like phones, tablets, TV's) as time goes on. Do I wish X11 was more effieicient? yes. Does Wayland offer the function I need? No. So, I'll stick to X11 as long as Wayland doesn't cause X11 to go away, and I hope Wayland goes away just because of the threat it poses in making X11 go away.

few != not important
a small percentage of people in the US ever use 911...so get rid of it?
and for all those who say X11 is crufty and has lots of bad code in it: YES! but, don't mix/confuse the implementation with the feature. It's the feature that is important, the X11 implementation needs some work, but it functions fine now AND NO OTHER REPLACEMENT WINDOW SYSTEM IS OFFERING IT!