They couldn't buy an RTG, didn't have the tech themselves, and so how exactly is this unnecessary?

It's totally unnecessary for you to walk to school, you should drive there. Except you're 5 years old and it's illegal.

Stupid article.

> We'll see how well solar competes when it gets (almost) the same tax treatment as other power sources

You mean when we dump billions of dollars of into a military side-project and let that flow downhill into the panel prices?

Yes, I await that day.

> or you are in a situation where you have to subside the baseload power plants

Which is a problem why?

We subsidized their construction, and the construction of the wires to bring that power to us, so why are we complaining about subsidizing the power output - which we already do anyway?

Is the real problem here that you don't like subsidies going to big companies, or the other way around?

As opposed to the trillions received by all the other energy sources over the years?

> scale embedded generation (i.e. rooftop solar) has an additional problem which is that of grid failure detection and anti-islanding

Really? Every grid-tie inverter, ever, has this built in.

> The problem is that grid instability is not easily discriminated from grid islanding

Yeah, this has been tested to death and it's not a problem. In one case they randomly failed an actual island, just to be safe.

Pointer to the UK issue you're referring to?

> It also means that you need 3-5 times as much installed capacity to get near the power delivered figures for baseload power sources.

Which is perfectly fine, when you consider it costs 3 to 5 times less to build.

http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized%20Cost%20of%20Energy%20-%20Version%208.0.pdf

Wind is the cheapest form of power. Period. Solar isn't, but unlike wind it can be installed on the residential side, where it's at parity.

> All projects have issues

Of course! But at some point the issues cost more than the project. And then you're supposed to *give up on the project*.

Surely you've worked on a project at some point in your life that you just stop working on because it's no longer worth it?

How many problems does EPR have to have before you reach that point? It's always WAY over budget, and at this point there is no way it could ever pay for itself. It appears highly unlikely Hinkley will use one, if anything ever gets built there, and everyone else is backed away. It's CANDU all over again. At some point you have to realize that no amount of extra money thrown at it will suddenly make it profitable.

> What was ignored? The processes in place to find such problems found the problem

We're ignoring the total unmitigated financial disaster that is the EPR. It's not that EPR had *this* problem, its that its had *all* the problems, and they just keep coming. Everyone just waves their hands and says "we fixed that!" while the money keeps piling up.

> it's good that the problem is identified and fixed.

With the project already billions over budget and years behind schedule, events like this hardly inspire confidence that there aren't more of these gotchas in the pipeline.

You probably wouldn't get on a plane these guys designed, but a nuclear reactor, that's just something to ignore with the wave of a hand?

Examine your assumptions.

> An EMP has very real potential for crippling much of our electrical grid instantaneously

A *nuclear* one, sure. But that would require someone to explode a nuclear bomb over the US.

Non-nuclear EMPs are a joke, and not getting better.

Ray Bradbury Award for Outstanding Dramatic Presentation: Guardians of the Galaxy, directed by James Gunn

One guy wants something for some poorly explained reason. His boss yells at him. Fight a lot, do stupid things to fight back. Power of friendship wins. The end.

Seriously, this was a Littlest Pony episode with bad in-jokes and worse acting. There wasn't a single other movie or TV show they could choose over this?

Remind me to not read the various winners.

> But if copyrights, patents, and trademarks are not property

Uhhh, correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but I don't believe that it was it means. I believe it means the ISPs do not have legal ownership over the property, so you can't sue them if someone uses an ISP to move stolen property. In the same fashion, the US Postal Service does not have legal ownership of the things you put in envelopes, so you can't sue them for putting drugs in them. In both cases you have to sue the person responsible for the actual illegal action, or sue for negligence or similar.

> not a violation of any part of the Netflix agreement

Go read it again, Article 6C and 6H specifically.

> I fully agree they can sue me.

I don't think they can. The copyright holder perhaps, but not Netflix. Netflix would simply cancel your service:

108
PRINT A A A
Netflix is clamping down on users accessing the service through a VPN, with its updated terms of service threatening to "terminate or restrict your use of our service, without compensation or notice".

Virtual private networks are used for a variety of reasons, but with regards to Netflix usually to combat limited download speeds and access content restricted to other territories.

Here's the key clauses:

Article 6C

You may view a movie or TV show through the Netflix service primarily within the country in which you have established your account and only in geographic locations where we offer our service and have licensed such movie or TV show. The content that may be available to watch will vary by geographic location. Netflix will use technologies to verify your geographic location.

Article 6H

We may terminate or restrict your use of our service, without compensation or notice if you are, or if we suspect that you are (i) in violation of any of these Terms of Use or (ii) engaged in illegal or improper use of the service.

Given the low bar that defines "protections", I guarantee there would be a lawsuit over if if there way any money in it.

But seeing as Netflix is getting paid by these customers, there is no money in it.