Not even close. VDSL2 DSLAM is (afaik) around 1000 euro for operators who buy them in bulk nowadays, and you can hook it to the building's electric supply. You're not going to need VDSL2 to work if building has no power anyway (modems will turn off without power), so you don't need any kind of batteries.

You seem to think this is hypothetical. This is how much of the internet is being implemented across Nordics as far as I know. They pulled this connection to my apartment building a few years ago, and the rollout is ongoing throughout the nation (I'm from Finland). I know for a fact that operators in Denmark and Sweden at least are doing the same in many cases.

In a large conflict that these are planned for? Yes. In those, everyone is expendable.

For smaller conflicts, you just need a good ejection seat and a solid retrieval team on top of flying electronic warfare aircraft alongside others.

Current versions of all those aircraft are survivable. F-18E/F versions are quite modern and you could work on those to build the next version. Or you can buy Rafale/Eurofighter (depending on whether you need attack focused multirole or fighter focused multirole). And for cheap light fighter needs a la F-16, you can buy Gripen.

The problem with your argument is that you argue that F-35 is necessary to replace those aircraft. It's not. NATO already has several functional aircraft that do what F-35 does, and do it much better. Rafale is a far superior multirole attack focused aircraft for example (far greater payload, has a superb jamming system instead of stealth which proved itself in Libya). F-18E/F will likely outperform it as an air superiority fighter, as will Eurofighter. All of these are cheaper and proven to work.

And if you're looking at competition against states like Russia and China, having a few expensive and largely dysfunctional "sorta" stealth fighters is a far worse option than having many cheaper, proven and reliable fighters with close range electronic warfare support aircraft mixed in. Notably that is how NATO forces operate nowadays, and that is why they have such a high survivability against SAM threats (with exception of Rafale, which appears to basically be an "electronic warfare aircraft lite" on its own, as proven in Libya where it was the only NATO aircraft to conduct air strikes without electronic warfare aircraft support).

The only ones who would take a hit are those who were planning to replace Harriers, because there's simply no replacement for Harrier in existence. That means UK that needs Harriers for its aircraft carriers and US marine corps. Everyone else would do just fine with F-18, Rafale and Eurofighter. Or if they need a really cheap lighter option, Gripen.

No, probably around 100-200m is the more realistic outcome. Which is enough for an average residential building. In a taller building where this range isn't enough, there's usually some sort of a panel mid way where you can insert repeaters to strengthen the signal for much cheaper than having to rip out walls.

Notably this is exactly how VDSL is being currently used. I now use one at home, 100/10 connection over a standard copper pair to DSLAM in the basement which in turn is connected to the central ISP network via fiber that was laid a few years ago in the neighbourhood. No need to rip out walls, and this thing has more speed and range than student network at student apartment I had back in early 2000s (when I moved in, that apartment had amazing speed of 10mbps half duplex ethernet in star topology which was super awesome since I moved from analogue modem at home). Modem reports that connection speed is around 85000kbps down and 10000kbps up. I live several tens of meters of copper wire from the DSLAM and run one ~10m extension from the wall socket the modem.

Essentially what we need right now is the way to utilize standard copper twisted pair intended for POTS service (usually CAT3 around where I live) that exists in most of the older buildings to support last mile speeds that are offered by pulling fibre to the apartment building, because VDSL for last mile is becoming too slow to carry speeds that are becoming more common (350mbps cable and 1gbps over ethernet).

Reading the TFA pretty much tells you that your "likely explanation" is the exact opposite of what actually happened.

Hint: a cleric sitting in his office somewhere filing lots of reports accidentally pasted the wrong number into the column. Woops. Clearly, a government conspiracy to create nuclear weapons from material that you can't make any from in the first place.

What kind of a better replacement that clerics involved in rotating those numbers en masse on continous basis are you suggesting? As far as I know, spreadsheets are used because they are pretty much the best tool we have for the job that meets the sum of all requirements better than any known alternative.

Or, as has been pointed out in the TFA, it has most likely been a clerical error.

Meaning fissile material is actually accounted for, someone just messed up a copy paste into excel file somewhere among the line of filing lots of reports.

But let's panic!

I imagine state of current US court system qualifies as "special circumstances".

In other words, you understand the problem, you just reject your understanding of it.

P.S. Please tell us how monopoly regulation doesn't hurt microsoft with those billion-level fines, or how chemical directive didn't hurt manufacturers who had to invest into phasing out mercury, and countless other examples. Because both companies involved as well as commission agreed on the fact that it was in fact harmful - they just disagreed on whether benefits to the public were sufficient enough to offset it.

I have no idea which country you are talking about - though I suspect Liberia et al probably have no programs to help small business in the starting phase. Well, they do actually IIRC, but that's funded by foreign donors as a part of development aid.

On the other hand essentially entire EU has a wide-reaching support network for starting a small business. Right now, if I had a decent idea, I could walk to my local government office responsible for the subsidies, file the forms and likely walk away with several tens of thousands of euros of start-up money.

Their criteria for acceptance are basically a background check to see if you have money problems and a series of interviews to see if you have a decent understanding what you're getting into and how your business idea works. After that, I would get support from the local small business association (which is funded by both national government and EU) in everything from securing an office with reasonable rent to how to do accounting. There are several programs ongoing on EU level right now that do exactly that, plus the national level programs.

In fact the biggest complaint from the small business owners is usually that once the initial help package is used up, the "drop" in support tends to sink small business too used to having so much assistance, and as a result they are campaigning for various extensions to the start up aid. In addition they have significant other benefits, such as those in regard to taxation, employment costs and so on.

The thing with small business though, is that criteria you put on it, which tells us exactly where YOUR problem lies. You want a "replacement income" and you want it early. Fact is, many start-ups produce no profits for a long time, mainly because they are either breaking into existing market (see: the biggest problem small business faces today referenced by me earlier) or they are developing their initial product. As such, they will obviously be much less profitable than a salary of a good engineer/techie crowd that usually visits slashdot.

Which is why starting small business is hard even with the aid. And it's not the "lack of government support" or "overbearing regulation" or other bullshit that hurts BIG business and that it really likes to whine about. It's the massive competition from incumbents in mature markets where most of the small business operates that makes it so hard to start a business, which brings us to my initial point that you attempted to deny. The problem with starting a small business today is globalization and its effect on the markets.

That is easily proven false. Small business enjoys massive government assistance, including start money, tax breaks, freedom from much of the red tape with accounting that larger business has to deal with and so on.

In spite of all this, it's almost impossible to break into the market that is already controlled by globalized megacorps that can outprice you, outproduce you and out-R&D you.

If you were to remove this assitance, vast majority of small business would be dead within a year across Western countries, as large conglomerates would simply crush the small competition everywhere where they are present, leaving only the most niche places for small business to survive.

Switzerland comes to mind as one of the last bastions of it, as do Nordic countries, especially Iceland.

Attention span of many people on the internet is about two sentences. I took three to deliver the obvious caveat. I guess I can blame no one but myself :D

I agree with you, hence my last sentence and emphasis on "democratic society".