Absolutely. Apple should shut down their iPhone operations immediately! I mean, WHAT ARE THEY THINKING! Geesh, will they ever learn?

Russia is not a growing marketplace of any kind. In fact, demographically, they're shrinking -- think low birth rates and huge waves of emigration.

The only attractive thing about doing business in Russia is access to its: cheap labor and natural resources (oil). Beyond that, if you're expecting to sell a lot of "stuff" in Russia, there are many far more promising markets.

Putin does need to be careful here: he's starting to establish a pattern of bullying that most large multi-national conglomerates aren't likely to take well to. No foreign investment = fail.

At first glance this looks like a "me too" entry into the music space. Whether or not it is will depend upon how Google executes this. Can they bring their same innovation "Huh, that's kinda' cool . . " feature build out to music? Can they leverage their advertising backbone to make the music cheaper or free? Guess it's wait and see.

Actually, given most EU nations' penchant for government sponsored or controlled healthcare, their control over a source of potential hearing loss makes perfect sense. After all, who do you think ends up paying for those hearing aids or surgeries when those folks end up suffering hearing damage?

Couldn't agree more. Was very surprised to not see this as a choice on the survey.

I can't / don't understand (other than the initial "Wow! Look how THIN it is!" factor) why this is such a huge selling point. I have all 3 of our plasmas mounted on the wall, and frankly, the space that the wall mount takes up is far, far more of a concern than the 1" or maybe 2" that can be saved by a thinner TV. Granted, with thinner comes lighter, but again, other then the one time you mount it and possible the one or two times you move it . . . is this that significant of an issue for people.

I'm not saying that manufacturers should not pursue thinner sets, but at a certain point (and for me, we're at that point) I could really care less whether or not the set in question is .75" thick or 1.25" thick.

The one caveat to this is in the extreme: if technology ever gets to the point that we're talking about paper-thin TVs (i.e. an e-ink display that can be rolled up like a piece of paper) . . . THEN there are some pretty significant advantages to thin-ness. But there's a long way to go before something like that is a reality. In the meantime, I'm far, far more concerned about faithful color reproduction and deep blacks than a missing 1/2 inch of depth.

This strikes me as an exceptionally unhealthy idea. You can quote me studies all day long that say living under power lines is ok, but . . . . there are simply too many incidences of cancer and other odd anomalies for me to believe the statistics (don't forget that there was "no statistical link between smoking and cancer for years . . . ).

The human body is electrically based, so the idea of pervasive electrical current running through the air of my house is not comforting at all.

I neeeed this badly.

Here's an idea, how about a graduated (over time) gasoline tax? $0.10/gallon in year 1, $0.20/gallon in year 2, $0.30/gallon in year 3, and so on until some upper limit is reached (say $2/gallon in taxes).

This would do several things: 1) it would ensure that the gas-purchasing public would know in advance that gasoline prices ARE going to rise over time -- meaning, that many people would have an opportunity over the next 5, 7, 10 years to change their purchasing patterns in advance of rising prices, 2) it would provide funding for alternative fuels research, infrastructure and mass transit infrastructure such as rail - assuming all of those taxes were indeed plowed back into research and development of same, and 3) it would provide car manufactures the same assurance as consumers, namely that gasoline prices WILL rise, so get "crackin'" and go design more fuel efficient vehicles.

At 19.4 gallons of gas per barrel of oil and 21 million barrels of oil consumed in the U.S. per day, that's approximately 148 TRILLION gallons of gas per year (if my math is right). Every $0.10/gallon tax would produce $14.8 trillion in tax revenue (those numbers seem pretty large, maybe my math is off?). Having a hard time seeing how that kind of financial incentive wouldn't alter consumer behavior and provided a much needed boost to alternative fuels R&D at the same time.

The present solution (mandated CAFE standards) places responsibility on auto manufacturers' shoulders (a bit too socialist for my tastes), while the tax would be gov't intervention, it would be intervention in a more free-market way. Almost a sort of incentive to buy fuel efficient cars.

Problem is no politician would sponsor such a bill because no one wants to tell American consumers what they don't want to hear: you drive too frivolously and irresponsibly.

I NEED this badly . . . my office desk is a big mess of cords and cables. Pleeeeeease.

This is total bunk. Over 77% of the average vehicle is recycled (ferrous, aluminum, copper, etc. are all too valuable to send to the landfill) when sent to a scrap yard. The remaining 23% is called "fluff" (basically shredded non-metallic content) and is considered valuable by most landfills, as it helps keep dust down and prevents garbage from blowing away (the actually pay to buy "fluff").

Germany recently instituted a similar incentive and spiked their domestic auto sales by 70%. This is a quick fix for auto sales with some small environmental benefits. It will also have the likely effect of increasing the value of used cars.

On the flip side, this will absolutely TANK the price of shredded steel scrap, aluminum and copper.