If that is how your state bills, then fix it. Other states have.

I live in Maryland, and long ago they separated the "power distribution" from the "power generation" and so you are charged for each one. I don't have a bill in front of me, but I believe there is (1) a fixed monthly fee for the power distribution, then (2) a fee per kilowatt-hour for the distribution, then (3) a separate charge that is for the power generation. This is all part of what has been incorrectly called power "deregulation" and amongst other things it also lets you pick your power provider.

It would be logical, in this scheme, to still charge a homeowner (1) and (2) even if they have solar panels.

There are many places where, not only is the power company unwilling to pay, they are unwilling to take it for free. For a while it was illegal to put power onto the grid, which necessitated inverters and batteries. At that time, home solar wasn't worth it for anyone at all.

I believe that states that have net metering also have a fee for using the grid. I know Maryland does.

FYI: This varies by state. I live in Maryland, and they also do things as you suggest. I think some states still use the model where the "power company" and the "utility company" are the same, and they just charge per kilowatt-hour. Inevitably that will have to change everywhere.

(Maybe one day internet will be the same way.)

Oh no, that isn't the case.

Even in places that bill by net metering, the home owner still pays for the use of the grid during that time. Some states charge a fixed fee per month, others charge a "tax" per kilowatt-hour for the power that the homeowner puts back on the grid. Maybe both.

In 15 years, could a video of your deceased parent dispensing advice as though it was the present day, actually be creepy?

Please don't take offense, but I recommend against this. Those videos might be heart wrenching to watch after a while. Perhaps it would be better to sing with the child now, and take a video of that. Then the child has a memory of his/her father to look back on, rather than an expectation to watch a video every year.

Here's why I say this: Dispensing advice via video makes sense, because the child may not be ready to hear certain things. But who are the videos for? The living or the deceased? At some point, children need to move on. Holidays should be happy events surrounded by living people, looking forward to the future. I don't think I would want a reminder like this every year. Imagine seeing the same person, at the same age, with the same voice, singing the same birthday song every year. It would be a reminder of loss, of the unfairness of life and the detriments of aging. (Sorry if that got too philosphical.)

I fear it wound sound phony and disingenuous. It would also add pressure to do those things, and a moral quandry to play them or not if they decided not to do those things.

Why would this require opening a port? I skimmed through the bug and didn't even find a mention of opening ports. Is this part of the discovery protocol for Roku or Chromecast?

Awesome! How long before I can get a lock of hair from someone, then auto-generate an avatar of them?

The article didn't mention a single item that could be counterfeited with a 3D printer. There was only a passing mention to guns, which is clearly not the main issue.

Sorry! Yes, I see you said that in your post. Interesting.

These things won't be secure until you type the PIN into the card. As long as you type it into a pin pad provided by a merchant, a malicious merchant, or the guy with a camera nearby, can nab the pin. Instead, the pin should be entered into the card, causing the card to generate a unique number.

My credit card gave me that option years ago. It would generate a temporary CC number. Great idea, but terribly implemented. You would think it would just display a web page that said "This is you temporary CC#, pin, and expiration date - good for 1 hour." Instead, it opened a pop-up window that tried to monitor where I was browsing in the other tab. I think it was trying to fill-in the form for me, or verify the web site or something. It probably worked just fine on IE + Windows XP with all the security settings turned down and no HTTPS.

From another perspective, to someone who has had chip-and-pin for a decade this could sound like a terrible experience. With a more secure system, this would never have happened. No phone call, no new card, no need to go through 3 months of charges.

One clarification: Threads get 1MB of "virtual" stack memory, not physical stack memory. This minor oversimplification leads developers to conclude that threads are orders of magnitude more expensive than they actually are.