That is not an obstacle. That is merely less of an incentive.

What that appears to mean is that without the subsidies and questionable business practices, no one in their right mind would buy solar panels for their home. That may not be the case, but the fact that the article fails to spell it out, suggests that it is.

What about those business models is illegal? Is it perhaps something that might reflect badly on the companies that practice it?

I read the article to try and find an example of the sorts of obstacles which "power company executives and regulators" had erected to keep home owners from using sunshine to generate their own electricity and found NONE. The article fails to mention a single one of the rules which prevented Mary Wilkerson (or anybody else) from installing solar panels. They do mention that the business models used by the businesses that sell solar panels are illegal in Florida, but they are less than clear what that business model is. The article says that the solar panel industry leases the panels to the homeowner rather than selling them. They than say that the homeowners sell excess power to the electric companies and pay the cost of the panels over time. What they do not tell us is what part of that business model is illegal.

The article actually seems to say that the low cost of electricity in Florida combined with a failure of the state to subsidize solar power through various incentives (including regulations requiring electric companies to generate some portion of their electric through more expensive "renewable" sources). All in all, it fails to support its thesis that it is harder to install solar panels in Florida than in Massachusetts. All the article does is make the case that it is more expensive.

I can, and do, work in Windows 8 without tweaking it, but it is a pain. Just not enough of a pain to go to the effort of figuring out how to make it work without being a pain (I am aware that I can download and install Classic Shell, but I have seen that on other people's desktops and do not like the look. I do not know if that is because of the way they have configured it, or if it is because of the way Classic Shell just is and have not yet reached the frustration level with 8 to do the work to find out). Windows 7 works for me the way it comes out of the box with minimal modifications that I can make when I decide they are worth the effort. Nothing to download and install.

I did not have to tweak Windows 7 to get it to work for me, nor Windows XP before that.

Can you provide ANY evidence for this assertion? As evidence that you are wrong I enter this phrase from the Hamas charter: "...initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion[.]” There is more that suggests you are mistaken, do you have any evidence to support what you claim?

The complaining is that you have to install classic shell in order to get Windows 8 (or 8.1) to get out of your way

You mean the way they are doing in New England by shutting down coal plants (and nuclear plants) and replacing them with...well nothing. They do not have pipelines with the capacity to carry increased amounts of natural gas and cannot get the permits to build more. They do not have the electric lines to increase the amount of electric they import from outside the region and cannot get the permits to build more. This will be an interesting winter in New England.

The question is, does Google, China have the ability to access data stored on Google. U.S. servers (assuming that Google has a separate corporate entity operating in China the way in which Microsoft has a separate corporate entity operating in Ireland).

I thought we were talking about Israel, not about Hamas.

You really need to do a more in depth study of wars throughout history.. The Napoleonic Wars were fought by marching around, confiscating supplies from the civilian population (so that the civilians in areas the armies marched through often subsequently starved). There may have been a short period between Napoleon and WWI where the wars fought in Europe were purely between armies, but that would be the exception in history and those were wars between governments, not between peoples.

Do you really believe that if Israel allowed Hamas to acquire all of the weapons they would like to obtain (and without Israel's interdiction could obtain) and allowed them to position those weapons within easy striking distance of Israel that they would not become a threat? You appear to be saying that Israel should wait until Hamas is powerful enough to pose a realistic threat before they defend themselves against Hamas. Why should Israel allow Hamas to become an actual threat to their existence? Especially considering that Hamas already does all the damage to Israel, in particular Israeli civilians, that it is capable of, and the evidence suggests that if Israel allows Hamas to become more capable, Hamas will use that increased capability to do greater damage.

In other words, allow those bent on the destruction of Israel to acquire weapons with which to attack Israel and freely move them to locations where they can be used to attack Israel. Before this latest outbreak of violence, Israel had been convinced to ease the restrictions on importing cement into Gaza because of "shortages" of cement for building there. It turns out that the reason there was a shortage of cement in Gaza was because Hamas was using most of it to build tunnels into Israel with the intention of launching surprise attacks into areas of Israel that did not have defenses. In the tunnels, which ended near several Israeli civilian communities, they found weapons, ropes, blindfolds and knockout drugs. So, you are saying that Israel should allow Hamas a free hand to import those goods they need in order to attack Israel.
Israel has tried to move toward what you are proposing. They have offered to negotiate a Palestinian state. However, those representing the Palestinians have always stated that they would start negotiating when Israel concedes to all of their demands (in other words, concede to all of our current demands as a starting point to negotiate towards satisfying whatever demands we think up later).

Are you claiming that Hamas does not seek the destruction of Israel? Are you claiming that Israel should be content to be attacked by those seeking its destruction just because those doing so do not, yet, have sufficient power to succeed? It seems to me that you are saying that Israel should allow the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank to acquire military power until they are sufficiently powerful to conceivably accomplish their goal of destroying Israel. Only then would you be OK with Israel defending itself, once it may be too late to actually do so.