I've seen major ISPs put networking gear acquired on the used market into service. During the years after the dot-com bust, it was pretty common.

Radioisotope based generators do that just fine. They've even been implanted in people. For a while, they were the standard for how to power pacemakers. Then some patients got old and died. It turned out that properly disposing of the pacemaker meant cutting up the dead body. That caused relatives a lot of distress, so we discontinued use of radioactive power supplies for internally implanted devices.

There's a large chunk of the economics profession which exists to state that for the rich to own everything, end the rest of us to be serfs is the natural order of things, and is truly in everybody's best interest. They go by various names, such as Freshwater economists or the Austrian school.

You're arguing against an oversimplified hypothesis as presented in the press, not what was actually in the paper. take a look.

And yes, you can estimate the size of various things affecting climate. And the reality is that for recent decades, the changes from human greenhouse gas emissions are an order of magnitude larger than the net forcing from other changes.

This will be my last response, as you don't seem interested in learning.

You're setting up a silly strawman.

There's a lot of reason to think that cosmic rays do impact cloud formation, but very little evidence that long-term changes are a result of cosmic rays. There are several reasons for this:
1. The long-term trend in cosmic rays over the past few decades has been flat, even as the climate has changed a lot
2. The earth's magnetic field means that ionized particles tend to arrive at particular latitudes, so you would expect to see particular patterns of cloud formation depending on latitude. Those don't happen.
3. There wasn't a big change in the climate at the same time as the Laschamp Excursion, when the earth's magnetic field weakened substantially, allowing many more charged particles to hit the atmosphere

The actual article is here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/california-budget/ci_18849537
You do need to log in though.

Given the fact that there is a supreme court ruling from the Sears days which is in Amazon's favor, I'm really surprised by this.

You could show that something else causes the formation of clouds. For example, you could look at the historical relationship between clouds and cosmic rays.

Redaction is the process of putting black bars over or otherwise removing information which remains classified when declassifying a document for release to the public. There isn't any classified information in the paper, and it was released to the public under a creative commons license, so redacting the document would just be silly.

Basically, it uses a model which appears tuned to produce a particular result and confuses cause with effect:

To help interpret the results, Spencer uses a simple model. But the simple model used by Spencer is too simple ... The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave.
...
Clouds mainly occur because of weather systems (e.g., warm air rises and produces convection, and so on); they do not cause the weather systems.

He is pretty sure:

The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature (cf. [7]), a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.

Wolfgang Wagner didn't quite his job. He quit what was most likely a volunteer position as editor.

If you want your equipment to work with the current standards, you need to mod it to use another radio frequency. In their current as-written form, the 802.11* standards just don't have a way for equipment negotiate graceful degradation in this situation, and that's what it would take.

Income inequality, state services, and Prop. 13. A big chunk of California residents are incredibly poor, and taxing them in any meaningful way would cause starvation. These people also consume state resources (prisons and such) at a disproportionate rate. In addition, state voters limited property taxes to a fairly low back in the 1970s, so that the taxes on a given property can't rise more than 2% per year unless you sell it. The net effect is that if you're well off in California, and particularly if you bought real estate recently, you pay more in taxes.

It depends on where they are. In some jurisdictions, they are regularly prosecuted for this kind of thing. Other places, such as San Jose California, have gone decades without ever prosecuting a cop, even when their own review boards recommend it. If you want to change this kind of thing, getting elected to city government is a good way to make that happen.