I installed 48 solar panels on my house which generates around 12,000 kW per year. The installation costs were $65,000 in 2003, or $31,500 after all the direct and indirect rebates. Based on my annual savings, I calculated (in 2003) that I would recoup the cost by the end of 2013, but as electricity costs have risen since that I time I think I'm pretty close to having saved all the installation costs already.

I do use the local utility company for power during non-daylight hours, but that's just a matter of convenience. I could have installed batteries at the cost of $5,000 - but why bother when the utility company can act as my battery? They pay me for excess electricity that is generated during the day, and I pay them for electricity used during the night. My annual bill in December 2011 was $(-133) - that's a $133 check from the utility company.

As an added advantage, we leave the house thermostat at the same temperature settings all year - a low of 72 degrees and a high of 76 degrees, so we are always comfortable at home.

Some people say that solar isn't ready for prime time, and never will be. That's just crap.

Right now, the ARM architecture equates to tablets and phones for many, maybe most people.

However, a number of companies (Qualcomm, NVIDIA, and others) have announced that they are developing ARM processors to challenge Intel in laptops and desktop systems. Probably they are going with ARM because Intel is being somewhat uncooperative (and maybe anticompetitive) by not letting them have licenses that would allow them to produce x86 compatible systems.

For these companies, having Windows on their ARM systems is vital. However, we shouldn't be short-sighted - restricting the ability for ARM systems to boot anything but Windows will (in the long run) benefit Intel, AMD, Via, etc. as much as it will benefit Microsoft by restricting which operating systems the upcoming ARM based systems can boot. They will either run Windows or they will run everything else, depending on the boot ROM in the system. Guess which most will chose.

Just as important, 8 of the 9 members of the PolitBuro Standing Committee (the highest and most powerful decision-making body in China) are engineers by profession. The most popular profession in the US Congress is lawyer.

I know which I would expect to get things right over the long haul.

You believe you have better algorithms than the competition. Starting a company is hard enough without giving Christmas presents to the competition. Keep everything closed while the company is young and vulnerable. Open source your code later if it won't help the competition AND you believe it will add value to your company. How far would Google have progressed if they had open sourced their search engine ten minutes after they had it working?

Frankly, if you have to ask this question you aren't really serious about succeeding.

Back in 2003 I installed 48 panels on my roof rated at 7.5kw. They generate between 11,000 and 12,000 kWh per year which is enough for all the energy we use and we get a small payback from the utility company for the excess - should be around $150 this year, which more than covers the $5 a month meter rental :)

The initial cost was $31,000 after rebates and tax incentives and based on my usage I calculated a 10 year break-even. However, energy costs in California have risen quite a bit since 2003 and I think I've broken even already, 18 months ahead of schedule. The panels should be be good for another 20-25 years, so I'm pretty happy with the way it's turned out.

Four thoughts:

They may well be right in thinking their data will be more accessible to the US government.

If I were an overseas competitor, I'd certainly use this as a reason to not to use a US provider. In a heartbeat.

The law of unintended consequences bites the US yet again.

This wouldn't be an issue if the US government hadn't acted the way it has over the last 10 years. The US government has so little trust overseas that people have no trouble thinking the worst of it. Karma is a bitch.

I remember when a megabyte of RAM dropped to under $1,000,000, when we switched from core to semiconductor technology circa 1972. And we thought it a great advance.

Now get off my lawn, noob.

Yes.

According to TFA, he did apply for a license and was refused by the DOJ. He's appealing that decision.

The fact remains that a useful product to purify water cheaply is no longer available because the government wants to control the active ingredient, and is willing to make the product unavailable as "collateral damage". I would guess some other collateral damage is the people who may end up with diseases because they drink water that isn't purified, and the percentage that die as a result.

I think YOU miss the point. HP and Dell (for example) have very large suppliers in China. Probably much bigger than Apple as they are much bigger manufacturers. Does anyone even ask HP, Dell, or any of the myriad other manufacturers who employ foreign companies to supply parts or labor about how well their suppliers comply with local laws?

Do you expect Apple to monitor all their suppliers for compliance with local laws? Isn't law enforcement a function of the local government? Do you think it's Apple's job to be enforce the local laws applicable to every supplier in every foreign country? Do you hold other manufacturers to the same standard? If not, why not?

Apple has actually spent money trying to get their Chinese suppliers to be better people. In fact, they are the only company that has produced an annual report on the subject. I really wish people would give as much attention to other manufacturers as they do to Apple. It isn't the biggest manufacturer by a long way and if anything it's better than other multinationals, not worse. What's so special about Apple's manufacturing operations?

oh, I don't know. Perhaps because each of the parties agreed to a contract with Facebook, and he's ordering them to break that contract - when Facebook isn't even a party to the case.

In this case it's no big deal at all. But a judicial order that involves deliberately breaking two contracts that were agreed with an uninvolved third party is not exactly what you'd expect to see. Maybe that's normal in divorce courts, no experience there.

So if certain countries want to have the U.S. removed from certain U.N. affliates, all they have to do is vote the Palestinians as members and the U.S. will defund their contributions. Consequently the U.S will have no vote, and no influence as it's no longer providing any funding.

Thus the U.S. has given countries who don't like the U.S. some power over the U.S. ability to influence U.N. organizations. The law of unintended consequences.

UNESCO is one of the most highly regarded and wide-spread agencies for cultural preservation in the World. There is a fundamental flaw in a law predicating U.S. contributions to the United Nations and U.N. affiliates on their members voting a certain way. UNESCO does not control its members and how they vote.

The fact that a majority of UNESCO members want to grant admission to a Palestinian state is no reason for the U.S. to "pick up its marbles and go home." UNESCO would be better with U.S. participation. The U.S. would be better off by participating in UNESCO.

This law should be repealed before the US has removed itself from every UN organization in the world.

If he's putting corporate email on an iPad, then he shouldn't be using the four digit password mechanism - it's a bad feature and should be removed in my view. If he used a real password, this exploit doesn't work. Furthermore, this only worked because he left his email open. Close the email before locking the device, no access.

Notice how the apple haters are often ACs - and often feel the need to swear at people using Apple products. It's just a company. if you don't like their products just don't buy them. No need to swear at the people who aren't haters - it doesn't make anyone more likely to agree with you.