The business models that have made solar systems financially viable for millions of homeowners in California, New England and elsewhere around the country are largely illegal in Florida, Virginia, South Carolina and some other Southern states. Companies that pioneered the industry, such as SolarCity Corp. and Sunrun Inc., do not even attempt to do business there.
What that appears to mean is that without the subsidies and questionable business practices, no one in their right mind would buy solar panels for their home. That may not be the case, but the fact that the article fails to spell it out, suggests that it is.
The article actually seems to say that the low cost of electricity in Florida combined with a failure of the state to subsidize solar power through various incentives (including regulations requiring electric companies to generate some portion of their electric through more expensive "renewable" sources). All in all, it fails to support its thesis that it is harder to install solar panels in Florida than in Massachusetts. All the article does is make the case that it is more expensive.
They'll stop fighting when Israel pursues a 2-state strategy with sincerity.
Can you provide ANY evidence for this assertion? As evidence that you are wrong I enter this phrase from the Hamas charter: "...initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion[.]” There is more that suggests you are mistaken, do you have any evidence to support what you claim?
installed classic shell, and don't understand what all the complaining is about.
The complaining is that you have to install classic shell in order to get Windows 8 (or 8.1) to get out of your way