In the future electric vehicles will be used instead of generators. Nissan already offer it in Japan. A Leaf with a 24kWh battery can run a typical house for a few days, depending on how frugal you are with the power.

People with billions of dollars to invest who look elsewhere because they don't see the (commercial) value in those technologies?

Any fix will have to be commercially viable. Yeah, NIMBYs, but do you really think that those guys are really what is keeping the nuclear industry down? Like they stopped all those coal plants and oil wells and fracking... oh, wait.

$2bn will do bugger all for nuclear. Rich as Gates is, he doesn't have enough money to invest in nuclear to make any real difference. Besides, nuclear's problems are not really to do with a lack of money, at least not in the way that donating £2bn would help.

On the other hand, $2bn in renewables will have a measurable effect. There is a lot of R&D, a lot of good projects that are pushing the technology forwards that he can put money into, all around the world. In many places they couldn't build nuclear even if they wanted it.

Strange definition of "free" you have there. It seems like they want some personal data and for me to labour away at some game in exchange for Bitcoins. Not what I'd call free.

Argentina defaulted, and while it was hard for a few years they have come out of it pretty well. If anything Greece should have done it earlier, rather than go through 5 years of pain and austerity only to end up doing it anyway.

The Eurozone countries really don't want Greece to leave the Euro though. Apart from damaging the Euro itself, it would just encourage other countries to do similar things when times got tough.

You know, it does kinda look like the original Xeroc PARC design: http://netdna.webdesignerdepot...

It's the lack of communication that really upsets people. At least discuss your plans for the site, and explain your decisions.

It's funny how people said the same thing about the Vista/7 look when it was new. And about the XP look when it first appeared in screenshots. Probably the Windows 95 look too, but I wasn't into PCs back then.

Having used 8 for a few years it's fine. They made the shadows a bit deeper in 10, which was my only real complaint. I've been replacing the start menu since I moved up to 7 anyway so the start screen never bothered me.

Personally, I don't want to see someone's hairy anus when they bend over to pick up a penny. There are also hygiene issues when nude people sit or just generally move around (our clothes catch a lot of wall naturally falls off our bodies). It gets even worse on hot days.

While some of us may enjoy it, I'm sure teenage boys might have issues with unwanted arousal too. Could be particularly difficult for gay people who have not come out yet.

Nudists deal with these issues, but in small societies that people have to opt in to or grow up in. Maybe society could adapt, but it seems both extremely difficult and like something that there is very little value in pursuing. The vast majority of people want to wear clothing, and those who don't appear to be catered for.

I'm really struggling to see any differences between this and the insider preview version I've been running for a while. TFA says it is faster, but doesn't give any specifics. This is a pretty piss-poor article/submission.

Keep reading...

"but it doesn't come up on Google when you search for that person's name. That's what they wanted"

So please explain how the law has failed to have the desired effect (the article is not associated with that person's name by Google).

That would be a dumb law, but that's not what this is. You really need to understand it before you start criticising it.

Libraries keep archives of newspapers, often on microfiche. Any articles about you are recorded there indefinitely, but they are not easy to find. Someone has to go there, have some idea of what they are looking for and where and when it find it, and then spend considerable time manually searching.

Then credit reference agencies came along and started collecting data about people and selling it on for profit. Suddenly it became much easier to find out if someone went bankrupt 20 years ago. People realize this was a bad thing, because a mistake 20 years ago could prevent that person from say getting a mortgage or starting a new business, despite not having had any problems since then. So laws were introduced to limit what credit reference agencies could report.

The story about that bankruptcy is still there, sitting in a library archive somewhere, maybe even on the paper's web site. But it isn't easy to find, and most people won't bother going to the lengths needed to discover it.

So, it's actually a very sensible, practical law that works in the real world.

So basically you are saying don't trust anyone with anything you wouldn't want made public.

In Europe, we don't want to live in a society like that, where we all distrust each other at a fundamental level and there is absolutely no expectation of privacy or ability to leave your past mistakes behind you.

The rules state that such people could not obtain a de-listing.

How does this affect the freedom of the press? Keep in mind that the article is still on the site and findable with Google, just not for the one specific name that requested the removal. The person making the request will have to have reasonable grounds, e.g. criminals with unspent convictions can't cover up their past this way.

How exactly does this affect the freedom of the press to publish what they like on their own web sites?