Mine was crazy about Lappland.

If you drove a Volvo or a Toyota in the same way, you would also crash and burn in pretty much the same manner, but with a tank of explosive gasoline to make things more interesting. Anyway, good riddance to this guy.

Yes, I'm assuming that. My point is that Aereo would operate the same way as a conventional cable service, but because it offers its content over the Internet it could go totally a la carte. And if it did so, the competition could induce other cable providers to do the same, switching their existing cable capacity over to Internet service. This would happen first in markets where a large percentage of subscribers already had streaming boxes attached to their TV sets, this being a proxy for tech awareness.

What the networks fear is delivery of TV content over the Internet. Now that everyone is getting streaming boxes of one make or another, this would invalidate their entire business model.

I was also wondering about the relevance of Aereo's technology in this new business model. If it gets classified as cable carrier, which is what the SCOTUS decision requires, then why not pick up its signal in the same way as all the other cable companies? Then it can trump everyone by offering networks a la carte over the Internet.

No, wait - that's a different peer review ring.

Money laundering is any use of cash which the government deems in a particular case to be connected with a criminal enterprise. This includes simple possession of cash, independent of its use in any transaction.

If you read the news from Europe these days, they seem to be doing exactly that.

Restructuring the grid to accommodate renewables ("smart grid" design) involves installing new meters that continuously send rich information about your power usage and which can control start and stop times for your large appliances. Sorry, but the flat-earth lobby has already decided we can't have those smart meters.

No, use your Bitcoin mining rig to toast bread and cook rice while in operation.

We don't want to send nuclear waste anywhere. The long-term radiation in it represents reusable, unburned fuel.

Hydro, the only baseload renewable, renders hundreds of square miles uninhabitable when operating normally.

You mean 'falsifiable': when a scientist publishes a hypothesis, the standard procedure is to describe what observations might support that hypothesis and which could call it into question. This guides scientific peers in designing experiments to test the hypothesis.

The problem here is that now that AGW has gone political, the rules of politics, not science, apply. The Church of Warminetics claims that all weather phenomena support their hypothesis. Question this, and they'll demand that your credentials be yanked and (the latest tactic) sue your ass off.

More importantly, how would the absence of humans cut down all the methane being belched by plant decay. Every peat bog, marsh, swamp and flourishing rainforest contributes some.