Or just buy up Exodus, period, continue operating it as a GOC, and release vulnerabilities are they're discovered.

No, many type 2 diabetics are insulin-dependant.

They thought she might have been cured as she went two years without the meds without suffering a relapse. Typically, a relapse occurs within weeks of discontinuing the medication.

But that ended up bring wrong, as she eventually did relapse, so now they need to figure out why it took so long for that to happen.

By suing what appears to be everyone except that someone else?

Yes, and then SCOTUS ruled the next day that Catholic-owned corporations can opt out of all birth control.

"I'm not denying treatment, I'm denying payment."

We've had that for almost a century. The Fischer-Tropsch process. Hydrogen+carbon monoxide+energy=liquid hydrocarbons.

The whole "fuel from seawater" thing a few months ago was this, using seawater as the source for the hydrogen (electrolysis) and carbon (dissolved in seawater).

Forget about using a CFL in the cold. Go get a LED bulb for that. The one I have in my front steps light (A 22W Feit) actually seems to get brighter the colder it gets.

This comes under the general category of "absurdly overbroad".

It's like pitching an entire city of of their houses because you suspect that there's criminal activity going on somewhere in that city.

That's Verisign, not Verizon.

Though not all the domains in question were .com and .net. For example, no-ip.biz appears to be out and that TLD is run by Neustar, though they're also a US corp.

1. 9% is the "typical use" failure rate. The "perfect use" rate is hypothetical and of little consequence for practical use, as people doing things perfectly is a damn rare occurrence. It's a far better idea to promote the use of methods that are inherently screwup-proof.

2. Yes, that is probably entirely within the constitutional powers of the US federal government. What you listed is quite similar to what was mandated by the second Militia Act of 1792. Though I don't think there was ever a legal challenge to that law, so I'm not completely sure on its constitutionality.

In total, yes, but with the IUD, it's all paid up front, which comes to a paycheque or two for a low-wage worker, whereas the pill comes in $10/month instalments.

Great! The people least able to afford a pregnancy can only get the least-effective forms of birth control! Awesome! That's definitely not a bad idea.

Or we can offer them any method they want, including far more effective and foolproof ones (IUD, implant, etc.), all at the same cost, which is what the mandate is about.

Yes yes, No True Catholic.

If you started expunging all the insufficiently devout Catholics, there probably wouldn't be much left of the church when you were done.

Though that may not be a bad thing.

You're assuming all birth control methods are created equal. They aren't.

The pill is a comparatively poor method in terms of success rate (roughly 9%/year failure rate and needs to be taken religiously every day) compared to more recent methods, such as IUDs (0.2-0.8% failure rate, depending on type. Basically foolproof as they're insert-and-forget for 3+ years) and implants (0.05% (this is actually better than the success rate for tubal ligation), insert-and-forget for 4 years).

The mandate expanded the state of things from "Oh, you're poor, so you get the failure-prone pill because it's cheap" to "Take your pick of any method, they're all covered", which is a good thing. Saddling people who can least afford a child with the most failure-prone method for preventing that is a recipe for disaster.