In other words, you're advocating to restore the original works...

A lot of assumptions in both of these models. And climate change is only one failure mode of civilization that could be applicable here.
1) Global Thermonuclear War
2) Global Pandemic
3) extinction event (meteor/volcanic eruption)
4) mass civil uprisings from the 99%

This type of device _would_ be viable for specific locations where survival becomes an issue - say refugee camps or other civilian groups in war zones/famine zones, etc.

You're assuming that an apocalyptic event would take hundreds (or at least dozens) of years before people were able to figure out how to turn these things on. There are plenty of plausible situations where the infrastructure of civilization is gone, but the relics could still work - given enough power (massive global "super-Ebola" outbreak, for example).

OTOH, you don't want to have to spend a lot of time post-apocalypse maintaining one of these. The necessity of scrounging for acid-free paper or building and maintaining a lead-acid battery and generating infrastructure make this more of a tool for groups who already have power and/or paper available for other needs.

Trusting in Bitcoin to avoid civil forfeiture is like trusting in TOR to avoid NSA or FBI surveillance. It's necessary but not sufficient by itself. The same kind of network analysis that the NSA does from telecom and ISP metadata can be done with transfers between Bitcoin wallets and location-based data between the computers handling the transfer.

This.

IT isn't "overhead", it's what keeps modern businesses running. If an IT dept. is being treated as overhead or janitors, that means that business is just treading water on existing tech and is failing to take advantage of new capabilities. If you're in IT and being treated like a janitor, you probably don't want to invest in the company stock plan.

OTOH, I've also run into some IT departments where the development teams think they are gods and treat the test teams and operations teams with the same condescension that comes from PHBs. "Teamwork" is such an inane term, but if you don't treat your co-workers with respect (at least outside of your inner thoughts) it has an erosive effect on your company's success. This applies both to the IT user who f-s up their computer AND to the guy who has to deal with that user both to fix the immediate issue and (with luck) educate the user just enough to prevent future disasters.

...says the junior PFK under the BOFH's tutelage.

Yeah, if they reorganize the "PC Settings" into categories where we have to read the minds of the MS development team to figure out what category the applet runs under,it'll be another C-F. How many IT folks here _don't_ switch the current control panel to "Classic" view on Win Server 2003/2008 or Win7? Don't force folks into an extra layer of memorization to figure out how to get to the WIndows Services dialog, etc.

Actually, if this is truly a private company, he's in clear violation of Federal anti-corruption laws. At least that's what they keep hammering at us in the corporate "pin the liability on the employee" training.

From my POV the more likely explanation is that "private" security firm is an NSA front. I doubt this company would get much business outside the US, with so many NSA ties already known. So my guess is that they use it to funnel NSA technologies and data to other government agencies that can't obtain them (legally) by other means..

If he's already got the patent, publishing after the fact doesn't matter at all. And there's a certain grace period if you publish and then file the patent (1 year?). Publication by another party prior to his/her patent filing would invalidate the patent.

A "Process" is slightly more concrete than an algorithm. An algorithm is pure computer science without the context of a use case. Software patents on a general purpose computer are too close to algorithms because a general purpose computer is a tool designed to convert any algorithm into a process for use in a particular domain. So once an algorithm is described, putting it on a computer is too "obvious" under patent law.

A patentable process was originally a physical process, frequently an industrial process.This was then expanded to include business processes ( 1997?). Software patents snuck in under the business process domain as more and more business processes were computerized.

Regardless of the power output, covering parking lots with solar panels at about a 70-80% coverage rate is a win-win. Provide weather coverage and shade for the parking lot patrons, harvests energy that would otherwise heat the asphalt. and the incomplete coverage allows enough light through to avoid the need for artificial lighting during daylight.

Plus, once you are able to prove the type of fraud/abuse described, it would be easy to get the contracts thrown out as invalid and regain control over the powerplant. OTOH, if this occurred several years ago, you're probably too late.

Yeah, this is the biggest fly in the ointment for me. He obviously has some investors to produce the devices that are being tested. If the investors were legit and not in on the scam, the best way for them to recoup their investment would be to fund building around 100 of the devices and actually put them to commercial use at a rate that undercuts electricity costs in Italy by a significant amount (say 20%).

There's a small possibility that he doesn't have enough investors/funding to pull this off, but I'm an engineer. If the device can't be produced and sold at a reasonable price, it isn't commercially feasible -- even if it turns out his device can make energy.

Finally, someone either knew it or bothered to look it up. The work on the photoelectric effect was what paved the way for e=mc^2, quantum theory and (less directly) most of the other stuff in modern physics. The photoelectric effect was unexplainable by Maxwell's equations because the relationships between the energy and frequency of the impinging light and the energy and quantity of electrons emitted didn't match what was predicted under Maxwell's laws. This was because Maxwell's formulas had no concept of the quantum energy states for electrons in an atom (or atomic matrix).

Technically, libel and slander are grounds for a civil suit, not criminal. Death threats and impersonation/identity theft are criminal but can be pursued civilly as well. Victims need to start lawyering up and getting rulings that bankrupt the trolls, and put them under restraining orders for their internet activity. If they persist put them under court orders barring them from accessing the internet, and throw them in jail for criminal contempt if they violate the court orders.

The standard of proof for civil suits is significantly lower than beyond a reasonable doubt, so the main barrier is getting internet sites and ISPs to release information that can identify the anonymous offenders.

And once again, this is not a feminist issue. Doxxing an SWATting are rampant against males as well. From Wikipedia:
* In the past, there have been swatting incidents at the homes of Ashton Kutcher, Tom Cruise, Chris Brown, Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber and Clint Eastwood.

Brian Krebs has suffered various harassments for several years now, as documented here: https://krebsonsecurity.com/20...

Basically once you reach a certain level of fame or notoriety on the internet, you are likely to piss off someone who thinks it's fun to engage in these kinds of activities.