Ahead of time, with plenty of warning that it's going to happen. This is an operational impact and while not small is entirely mitigatable. Fair scenarios aren't because by definition stuff has failed and you can't know what will be working or available.

And of course if you dismantle the damn you can also reclaim the land rather quickly.

Need we mention the fishing and recreation industries that now take advantage of the new lakes? There isn't a 'positive' side to a nuclear accident...

the problem is nuclear has risks like nothing else we've ever done; see failure conditions above.

Nuclear isn't safer. It's only 'safer' until something goes wrong. Every reactor built was built 'to never fail' and yet we found ways to make them fail. New reactor designs may be 'more' resilient to our innate ability to screw something up, but that doesn't make it 'safer'.

Coal has massive 'operational' issues. It's failure scenarios are pretty mundane and localized.

Nuclear has some operational issues (storing waste being the biggest) but the failure issues are the big ones. They occur infrequently but unlike every single other source of fuel, render 100s of square miles uninhabitable for decades. Nothing else has that problem.

Nukes are unfortunately the only realistic answer in the short (100ish or so years) to solve this problem. Believe me, I *hate* nuclear, but I'm willing to realize that it's the lesser of short term evils at this point. Considering the massive damage climate change is going to wreak...it's not a high bar to be 'better' than that...

But you'll need smaller solar panels because the lights use so much less energy.

Manufacturing costs are always less than fuel costs, both in simple cost and effects. One is a fixed one time thing, the other is ongoing.

Indeed they should. but can you imagine the number of password/pin resets the average Joe would then generate?

The cognitive dissonance of complaining about renewables by saying power should be generated closer to the user is stunning....

Doesn't get much closer than my roof :)

And the cost to transfer all that gasoline/coal/oil? Certainly not negligible.

I haven't RTFR but while yes he's said he's involved, I wouldn't expect he'd have to tell them WHAT his involvement was...that's the prosecutions job.

The ruling (from accounts) seems to be separating the providing of the password from the contents of the drive - which is an unreasonable search. If they already know what he's done from what he's said, they could easily give him immunity for anything else found on the drive except what backs up what he's already said - then there's no 5th violation.

Also generally speaking, the warrant to search a drive has to be pretty damned specific, so if they already know what he did...it seems odd to request access to the drive.

A key is a physical object and as such can be compelled. You aren't participating in your testimony by providing the physical item; you have to provide LOTS of other information during disclosure so it's not like you can't be compelled to provide something that physically exists.

The difference here is that the key is theoretically in his mind and so he would have to participate in providing that; hence why it's generally been found that keys can be compelled but combinations on locks can't and similarly passwords can't be.
BR Of course the amendments have been eroding for some time now...

You know who else should get used to something? Companies who blindly let their lawyers run wild. It's called the Streisand Effect and it can be a just reward when the internet decides they don't like you because of your overly legal behavior.

Nope, it isn't. It's a very legal response but 'defend' can simply mean have the other party clearly indicate they aren't you.

I.e. every commercial says 'Coke is a trademark of Coca-Coal Industries' when they use a Coke product placement. As long as you assign who own the trademark you're using you can use it (with some legal caveats I'm sure).

Yes, that's the wrong way. Allowing lawyers to run free and wild without any thought towards what it's going to look like when you're major fan base starts hating you.

IKEA could simply require them to have big 'We aren't IKEA" banners thus avoiding the 'confusion' they claim.

Then why aren't Cogent's other peers having the same issue? The issue here is Verizon, just as it was with Comcast.

Verizon is playing favorites, Netflix is simply calling them out on it...how exactly is this a 'bad' attribute of Netflix? Hell Netflix has already paid Verizon for better access, and apparently Verizon still isn't providing it.