I disagree. Back to your OP where you asked for evidence they are "scared;" which I took in the common business usage of " seriously worried a business model is about to be Schumpetered" than the "OMG I just pissed my pants in the haunted house..." Having spent a significant time in the electric utility industry I can say electric utility are very protective of their turf and afraid of technologies that risk them losing customers, i.e. load. They want, via regulation or legislation, to either co-opt competitors so they can control them or limit their access to their customers. Solar and battery technology has the potential to seriously change their load profiles and result in a lot of expensive investments generating a much smaller return than expected. Even worse, it can result in them having to pay a lot of customers for power rather than simply selling them it. When it's a handful of people they basically ignore it, but when the technology has the potential to turn a significant percentage of their non-industrial customers into independent power producers, yes, they are scared. They may not be pissing into their collective pants but they are hearing the words of a dead Austrian economist and he is scaring them.

Given many are trying to limit what they have to reimburse for non-utility generation by homeowners and businesses, establishing access and other mandatory fees to compensate for lost generation and or transmission revenue; I'd say they are certainly con corned, if not scared, and trying to get ahead dog the issue by getting laws and regulations in place before solar / storage becomes a major competitor. Once it is more common it'll be harder to shift costs to consumers.

While they may have been live mules the MULE was a also a mechanical device. Could have been a museum piece or maybe an M-Gator?

Cab drivers in Vegas are supposed to use the shortest route to airport but will us the longer route to get extra bucks. If you call them on it they will cut the fare to the proper one rather than risk a confrontation and potentially losing their license (1). All I've had to do is when given the fare ask "Why did you use the longer route instead dog the proper one?" and I get an "Damn" look and the driver charges me properly. Conversely, if a driver uses the proper route I give a tip that covers the difference plus and thank him for doing so.

Note 1: This was told to me by a LV cabbie

A disease that is mutating to bece less deadly unlike the cases you describe.

Hey, Kim was named the sexiest man alive recently so maybe they have something to be proud of waving...

depends on the parasite's life cycle. If they can only live within the host then become symbiotic, or at least not causing illness and death, is beneficial. If they only need the host for one part of their life cycle, such as wasps that use insects as a source of food of rhetoric larva; then killing the host is not a problem.

Except in this case, slow replication means the host never gets sick enough to die; they merely live with an infection and may exhibit no symptoms of the disease. They remain contagious but the disease no longer progresses to full blown AIDs.

What the article says is the virus, as it adapts to a strong immune system weakens it's ability to replicate; thus slowing down the onset of the disease in the host. If another person is infected by this weaker virus, the new infection results in an even weaker virus as it tries to adapt to the host. In essence, each successive infection results in a virus less able to replicate and thus result in a slower and slower onset of AIDs. Over time, the virus may lose it's ability to replicate fast enough to cause AIDs and merely be another infection for the body to deal with.

Perhaps, but you are mixing the ease o fuse of a piece of technology with the ability to use the underlying technology. It does no good to be able to open a spreadsheet more easily if you have no idea how to use the spreadsheet beyond the basics; and my experiences with school systems is they give the teachers technology and expect them to use it without teaching them how to use it. As result, they spend hours struggling with the technology and sometimes simply discard it because it is too much of a hassle to use.

Correct, until it is repealed (unlikely) or struck down by the Supreme Court it is still the law. This could be a good case to take to the Supreme Court since it highlights the impact of changing technology on the law and could clarify what is required when presented with such a writ.

I doubt the "didn't hurt myself or anyone else" argument is a basis for drawing the conclusion it was a reasonable and prudent action. The court even said that a ticket for reckless driving could still be issued without a set speed limit so it pretty much dismissed the "didn't hurt myself or anyone else" argument as well. The key is if you do not know what the law determines is legal in such a case you can't be help accountable if someone else (a cop) has a different viewpoint of what is legal since there are no defined boundary between legal and illegal.

Per TFA, what the Montana Supreme Court said was you can't give someone a ticket for speeding based on "reasonable and proper" since no one could determine what was legal and that allowing a cop to decide was not legal. They didn't impose a limit rather they said in absence of a clear limit you could not charge someone with speeding since they had no way to know of sure wether or not they were complying with the law.