I doubt Anonymous Coward has a job. He posts here several times an hour, every hours, 24 by 7. Unless his job is spamming out these ripoff web sites.

What I do is make incremental backups to a set of 3 hard drives (which I just recently upgraded to USB 3.0 and 2TB each). I rotate them to/from my work location (but you could do this with a friend's or family member's house). I take one to work, and bring the other one that was at work back with me at the end of the day, and run the backup to it that night or the next day or two. I rotate about twice a week since usually a few days of lost data due to, say, my house burning down and destroying the backup drive, too, would be the least of my worries. So there is always at least one at home and at least one at work. If you are more paranoid, get 5 drives and do it more often. Or maybe use 2 sites away from home. If you work for the NSA ... uh ... nevermind.

I use a black one, a red one, and a blue one. I did not get the titanium one.

That's why people should make a backup of their online cloud storage.

Encrypt your own data yourself before handing it over to some online/cloud storage provider.

As long as your provider keeps offering it you can keep your existing coverage. And the law does not require the provider to drop it. If your provider drops you, it is entirely THEIR fault.

I'm sure a few people have noticed. But to be sure, I'll run a simulation.

It's defamation if you cannot defend your position. Twitter is not defending their position.

Another way is to sue them and get it in the discovery process.

If they didn't determine the exact reason, they didn't do it right. They should not be blocking sites based on a bad process. Fix it.

The site did investigate. Twitter did investigate. They came to different conclusions. If the site brings it to court (they should, IMHO), then in court Twitter defends themselves with information they SHOULD have provided in the first place (or provided to settle the case) and the court throws it out because the site now knows what they wanted to know. Or Twitter fails to defend and loses. The lawsuit is to get the information.

Then just ask "what is 6 minus 5". Why make the question ridiculous?

It can be part of the solution. But it also means the meters have to be changed, and people will get less money for the electricity they push into the network, or have to pay the distribution cost based on how much they push. And yes, generation cost and distribution cost is near 50/50. The old analog meters cannot do it, but most will just run backwards when power is pushed out (negative current/voltage ratio).

On a small scale, the solar feedback is not much of a deal because the power pushed out by one home would be used by the home across the street. But on a large scale in places like Arizona, entire neighborhoods could become sources of power, and that can have technical impacts on the core electric distribution network. For example many 3-phase transformers are the "delta-wye" type under the assumption of power going in one direction. Reversing the power through such a transformer creates many new complications. They would have to replace these with "wye-wye" transformers (which would require some other changes as well, adding cost).

Yes, this would be similar to the electric competition many cities have. One entity (private or government) running physical infrastructure under regulation. Then the people buy service from the provider of their choice with price (and other) competition aspects. For internet, it would be a fiber run (or multiple) to each home that can be used by the network stack provider (even Comcast) to connect each of their customers. Less regulation of the providers will be needed when there is competition.

This is not to put Comcast out of business. It's to make Comcast compete better and provide a better service at a reasonable price, instead of gouging consumers and making massive profits. Things like this need to happen because there is no competitive market for internet access. If we did have a competitive market, then we would not need these government based efforts.

Have a look at the competitive electricity markets a few places have set up. This is how we need to do the internet. One company would operate the physical infrastructure (the dark fiber). Multiple companies would lease it out between them and their customers. Comcast can be one of those companies, and would be able to reduce costs by not having to maintain the physical infrastructure. But they would prefer to have no competition so they can jack up the prices to ten times as much, and be a gateway for nation networks to get them to pay, too.

I do. The can't make a profit when buying power at the same rate as selling it. AND they can't maintain the electrical distribution network without any difference in those rates. Sure, it's a big corporation that wants a monopoly and control of the prices. But the "buy customer's solar production" concept needs to involve selling power to the utility at a rate that allows for distribution and maintenance costs to be covered with at least a reasonable profit from that.