1) It is far easier to reduce emissions at a single point source like a power plant than it is to maintain low emissions at multiple point sources, particularly since the air quality reviews done on-site for a power plant are far more rigorous than the testing your cousin's muscle car got at "that mechanic shop outside town you can go to for.. you know... muscle car inspections".

1a) It becomes easier to make the case to switch that power plant to something cleaner when it's the last holdout in the pollution chain. But speaking of the pollution chain...

2) The raw materials for petroleum products *also* has to be pulled out of the earth. And I would be willing to bet a *lot* of electric car batteries are recycled, because the places old cars go to die have a vested interest in recuperating as much value as they can which would include returning said batteries for a refund of some kind.

3) The Motorola DynaTAC was the first commercially available mobile phone, sold in 1983 for an inflation adjusted $10,117 (1983 price, $3,995). You can get a cheap mobile today with no initial cost and $20/month. The Osborne 1 was the first commercially available laptop computer, sold in 1981 for an inflation adjusted $5,007 (1981 price, $1,800). You can get a Dell laptop starting at $799 (didn't even try to find a cheaper option, though I'm sure they exist). The point being that new tech is *always* expensive at first, is *always* sold to the more affluent first and only drops in price once the market gets bigger and production can be streamlined.

4) Charging stations, and the problems with charging in general, are probably the biggest issue right now, particularly for renters. And that may be partly a question of scale (after all, charging stations continue to be put up, so at a certain point I would expect we would reach a tipping point where, yes, you *can* travel cross country with a reasonable expectation of recharge stations all along your trip) and it also may be partly a question of technology (how do you get sufficient electric potential transferred into the vehicle in a short amount of time?). But given how things are right now, market growth is the only way to continue to stoke interest in answering these questions.

xxxJonBoyxxx is describing the multiplayer aspect of SC1. You are describing the single player campaign. In the multiplayer aspect of SC1 there was the option to have a strategic element where you had star systems tied by star lanes. You secured star systems as choke points and for resources and when enemy fleets moved in there was combat which was like a single ship Super Melee mini-game between the two players. Something akin to Archon. There is nothing like that additional strategic layer in the SC2 multiplayer mode, though since we do have UQM I would love-love-love to see it added. :)

Cost and Infrastructure and Recharge time.

The problems with range are actually problems with infrastructure. You can get pretty good range on one fillup. The problem is that when you do reach a point when you want to recharge you are going to want to easily find a recharging station. In the US at least there are not many regions where they can easily be found. Moreover when you do want to recharge you will have a wait on your hands.

Furthermore as an apartment dweller my options to recharge overnight are very limited.

The good thing is these are solvable issues.

IANAL but I suspect that part of the reason corporate would not step in to make such rules is to maintain the separation between the corporate entity and the franchisees. The more control corporate is able to exert control over the running of the franchise businesses, the more tightly bound they are to the franchises and the more likely the are to be able to be sued when one or more of them do something corporate disagrees with.

But the GOP fear of homosexuals is demonstrably NOT irrational. If homosexuals had their way, no GOP would ever get elected.

IANAL but I suspect that in a case like this the judge would pierce the corporate veil since Company Y is clearly just an attempt to circumvent the intent of the law with a legal fiction. Specifically that Company Y is truly acting independently when in fact it is acting purely within the parameters dictated by Company X and purely within the interests of Company X.

That's rather the point. If they are concerned about the content, they can still review talk titles and summaries and judge from there. If they have a concern, they can inquire. What they shouldn't do is attempt to shut something down so that it never even sees the light of day.

Except the difference here is that on Slashdot at least at some point someone actually reviewed the content being rejected. And in fact, "rejected" isn't even appropriate since it is still possible to review the full measure of the content since it is only hidden.

The equivalent in Violet Blue's case would have been if the con organizers had taken her up on her offer to do the presentation elsewhere or to video tape it and show it after the con but still make it available to those at the con. Instead she was never even allowed to speak.

Some would argue it still isn't.

I'm just guessing here, but probably:

Give me this.
Buy me that.

What I find interesting is how Microsoft still uses the Office suite to fend off threats to the real reason it is still entrenched in many back offices... Exchange.

I've personally seen many businesses try alternative office suites only to say that while they are more or less happy with the replacements for word processing, spreadsheets, presentations and the like, they didn't feel they could drop Outlook because they rely so heavily on the collaborative features of Exchange.

These companies don't want to migrate to Google's cloud based offering because they want things kept on premises. And there isn't a compelling all-in-one alternative to Exchange that is as easily tied in with their existing systems (e.g. auto-login via Windows authentication). So because they keep Exchange, they keep Outlook. Because they keep Outlook, they keep Office. And so the wheel turns.

Isn't that already ostensibly an issue? If a candidate states that he will vote according to such-and-such values, including supporting or opposing same-gender marriage, then voters will turn out in support of or opposition to that candidates election, according to their motivation on the subject.

Those with a minority view that have a favorite candidate rarely ever get them elected. Certainly not without gaining support from outside their base in some way.

How is this different?

That's the first comparison that came to mind for me as well. While Microsoft might be able to be accused of not having fully leveraged their former position, they aren't exactly at the bottom rung. RIM is not only on the bottom rung, it's barely got a hold of it. I may not care for Microsoft but it seems you have to really have it out for them to put them below RIM's performance.

Not saying what's right or wrong here, but ... ... in most cases, the converted murderer would be presumed to go to heaven. 11th hour conversions have a pretty solid place in Christian systems and the typical thinking is that as long as the conversion is sincere (which of course anyone aside from the murderer and God himself cannot know), then salvation is assured.

The real question hinges on the disposition of your Buddhist friend. For denominations of Christianity with a more liberal interpretation of the bible, the Buddhist may very well still be considered heaven-bound, on the belief that they are espousing the tenets of the faith even if they aren't explicitly claiming the Christian god as being one's savior. On the conservative end, the belief would be that he would not have salvation because one of the most important requirements is considered belief in Jesus as the one and only savior and the only means to achieve salvation. I don't know of any Buddhist tradition which teaches this (though I suppose I could be mistaken; I'm given to understand some Buddhist teachings are pretty flexible in some respects). In between these liberal and conservative views you'll find interpretations that shift away from outright claiming one thing or another but still lean in some direction. Many folks would feel uncomfortable taking a position on the issue and would therefore tend to obscure it or avoid it altogether.

With the constant switches to a blue screen with the word 'simplified', I was primed for an IBM commercial close.