Because it doesn't cost the TV stations money when you turn your TV on. Websites have to pay bandwidth fees and the like.

I've got mixed feelings about ad-blocking, so I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it's definitely different from muting TV commercials.

I couldn't agree more. There seems to be continuing trend in game design towards making games where the player is never frustrated. The way I interpret this, we're headed towards the philosophy of "don't make the game too hard, and if the player is still having trouble, make it even easier by dynamically adjusting the difficulty."

Now obviously for some people that's great. If you're a casual gamer, you still want to be able to play through games without getting stuck on the first level. However, I think there's a real hole in the market right now for games that cater to hardcore gamers. Personally, I like games that are a little bit frustrating, because it means I'm being challenged. I don't want to play an interactive movie, I want to play a game.

There are signs that this might be changing (Demon's Souls is a good example of a game that bucks the trend and does so in a very compelling way), but I think one of the big reasons that multiplayer games are so popular nowadays is simply that real players provide a genuine challenge to play against.

Do *you* even know how much waste *you* are talking about? The US alone has accumulated over 60,000 metric tons of nuclear waste from fission reactors. Your figure of a 5mm by 10mm cylinder per year of waste is ridiculous.

Yes, of course coal releases more radioactive material into the atmosphere. Since we have to store the nuclear waste, *none* of it ends up in the atmosphere.

Now I'm not saying coal is good, or that nuclear isn't necessarily worth it...but if you want to advocate nuclear power, then stop damaging its credibility with arguments like these.

Paper is plenty sustainable. It's a renewable resource that can be recycled easily and cheaply. Obviously it takes some energy to manufacture and ship, but so does the kindle.

The "sustainability" claim is obviously just an excuse for something they wanted to do anyway.

Who's to say batteries can't be "free of rare metals" or have "extremely fast charge times"? Yes, nobody likes the limitations of current battery technology, that's why we're spending money to eliminate them.

I know the word "battery" isn't as exciting and glamourous as "ultra-capacitor", but let's keep things realistic here. There are batteries we have that work well for electric cars, and they only keep improving with time. Ultra-capacitors, on the other hand, have yet to demonstrate themselves as anything other than hype.

None of the Republicans voted for the stimulus bill.

That is absolutely incorrect. Three Republican senators voted for it. This may sound insignificant, but without these Republican votes, the bill could not have passed. Because of this, the Democrats ended up making quite a lot of changes to a bill that they could have otherwise just pushed through on their own.

Very well put. The Republicans have been saying things like "the stimulus bill has too much spending in it." What do they think stimulus is?!

This is basic economics, and it's not hard to understand. If the government gives someone a tax cut, they might spend the money and stimulate the economy, or they might just put it into savings. If, on the other hand, the government spends that money directly, they are guaranteed to stimulate the economy.

The best way for the government to stimulate the economy during a recession is government spending. Period. The Republicans aren't opposed to it because they think it won't work, they're opposed to it because they're afraid it will, and they'll do anything to try and bring down their opposition.

There's a good paper with an in-depth analysis of the topic here:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf

It's written by Tesla about the Roadster, but all the facts have sources cited, and most of the information is not specific to their particular car.

If you used that same gallon of gasoline to power a generator to charge your electric car, you wouldn't get any more efficiency--the opposite, in fact, due to losses in the conversion and storage process for electricity....not that they're so vastly more energy-efficient than gasoline cars (because holistically, they're not).

That is simply incorrect.

Even if 100% of the energy for an electric car is produced by oil burning power plants, you are much better off efficiency-wise than you are with an ICE-powered car. This is considering all energy losses involved, from the transportation of the fuel to the losses in the power lines to the inefficiencies in the batteries and motor. Large-scale generators are just that much more efficient.

Do two minutes of research next time before you post. Please. I have seen this myth debunked so many times, and I cannot believe it's still being repeated.

Exactly! I couldn't agree with you more.

And yet, all I can see people talking about is how this is "propaganda". What!? Since when is providing straightforward information about your future plans and priorities equivalent to propaganda? Would you all prefer a president who keeps everything in secret and just does whatever he wants behind his country's back?