The basic article is rather rife with false assumptions and simply wrong information.

Much of the article seems about power (the amplifier)... and I've got gear at my house spanning the past 30 years.
Though he discusses power; let's start with the actual sound quality... a well built amp will work with no discernable loss of soundquality. Period. Decades of testing by basically everyone (not to mention a simple oscilliscope) show that a properly built amp, driven within its limits, has no audiable diviation from "perfect".

It was true 30 years ago. It's true now. If there's "a sound" to your amp either
1) It's deliberate.
2) The amp is junk
3) There's a problem.

So what about power? Well, McIntosh (my 35-year old is 120Wx2) makes amps up to 2,000W right now; and there are others that go higher. Peavy has a class-H amp at best-buy that's 1200W @ 2ohm for a couple of hundred dollars.

But any discussion of power is just stupid without a discussion of load. As we've moved to self-powered subs and smaller mains: the needed power to drive speakers has gone down. Sure you can get a set of B&W800s or such... and for you the high-end store still carries huge amps.

There's so much that can be said but the short of it is, unless you actually screwed up, it is the speakers, not the amp, that determines the sound.

But what about the other way? Hearing someone when I've got a lot of background noise. My problem with "in-the-ear" has been that, because the distance is so short and the driver so small, the rate of volume increase / decrease is sharp. In short, I quickly go from "can't hear you" to "too loud, but still can't understand".

Then I could deal with a radioactive oil slick. At least I could still tan at night.

"condemn an entire industry because of one accident"

Well blowouts occur more-than-yearly with oil dumps in the tons. Add to that collapses, sinkings, pipe ruptures, and things like tanker ruptures and the numbers get very signifigant.

This is just an unusually large instance in an unusually noticed spot.

But how well will it work in the minivan when the kids want to watch it, or on the plane when work is flying me somewhere?

Copyright was not created back in the days of yore, nor enshrined in the constitution to protect / help the economy.

The express purpose for granting an artist exclusive copy right for a limited period was to encourage the production of more art. (the US constitution is pretty explicit, but so is centuries of common-law before that).

How / why am I having my tax dollar spent on this non-issue. I don't think we have a shortage of art looming, and if we do: I don't see that copyright laws in India are the problem.

Yes, we know of windows and skylights (windows in roofs). Neither routs light througout a building.

But light-pipes do. In smaller buildings (houses) they are hemispherical light gatherers with basicaly reflective conduit. In larger strructures, they are fiber-optic.

Cool, but not new.

The license you get that allows you to pilot a helicoptor is for "rotary wing aircraft".

Those blades are indeed wings (to the same extent wings on a plane are).

Not that this is related to the actual topic at all.

Well, for one the government is not targeting innocents deliberately. Trerorists who confine themselves to killing active-duty sodiers are not terrorists.

Secondly there appears to be a lack of context / consideration of the alternatives. As a political action: this is assassination. As a military action, this is firing weapons at the enemy.

Do you feel that dropping bombs on your enemy is illegal? We've done it in every war since WWI.

Perhaps your concern is that, rather than carpet bombing whole cities, we are bombing specifically the people who are warring with us? How is that worse?

No, indeed the "you are killing the enemy" cannot possibly be a valid argument against this... nor can any argument that would simultaniously disallow this but allow the same result from a manned airstrike (or ground action).

You seem to be arguing that machine-gun nests are OK but snipers are murders. It's a silly argument, and a non-starter as an anti-drone basis.