Condom breaks and the woman ... Too bad asshole, ... lied about being on pills.

Okay. It seems that you have some other issues than the subject at hand. You might want to take them off-line.

And what stops her from seeing the regular doc then getting the script filled at a clinic?

Doesn't that sort of depend upon the location of the free clinic? And what hours it is available? And whether she has to go through any protesters to get inside?

And whether this ruling can be interpreted to allow a company to refuse coverage for the doctor visit to prescribe the pills?

My insurance company isn't giving me free condoms, and I don't have any get out of jail free cards made available to me if my birth control fails.

I think that your side issues are becoming a problem with your ability to discuss the main issue.

The insurance companies charge different rates for different demographics because the insurance companies have the statistics to back up their pricing.

Insurance is heavily regulated at the federal and state level. If the insurance companies are charging demographic X more than demographic Y they had to provide evidence based upon statistics that showed X is involved in more accidents or more costly accidents than Y.

Getting hormonal birth control from a doctor other than your regular doctor means that those two doctors have to both have access to your medical records or both consult on any issues you might have.

Different pills have different effects (and side effects) on different women.

The only time it makes sense for a woman to get hormonal birth control from a free clinic is when that is her only source of non-emergency medical care.

Fukushima greatest impact was deaths caused by an irrational evacuation

No, the large swaths of valuable land, left uninhabitable by humans for centuries, is the bigger impact.

Solar+wind means lots of natural gas or coal peaking power plants

That's complete nonsense. Solar IS the "peaking power plant".

solar rooftop joins together the two highest risk professions performed in large scale (roofing and electrician).

Both risks are very easily eliminated by proper regulations, forcing contractors to use proper safety equipment.

Solar+wind+hydro+biomass+geothermal can't run the worlds electrical grid without another 30 to 50 years of scientific advancement.

Also nonsense. In fact solar is the ONLY technology that can supply the projected demand a century in the future. It can supply ALL electrical demands, in combination with pumped hydro for extended solar minimums, without issue, just as quickly as the facilities can be built. Solana is a good model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

The problem isn't having enough panels. Its also not having cheaper/higher efficiency panels.

Baseless crap. The current efficiencies are vastly more than necessary. The numbers have been run by a number of people many times, and only a very small landmass is needed for the entire world's current energy needs.

Its a humongous energy storage problem.

Thermal storage is well understood and has been in-use for years. Pumped hydro storage is well understood and deployed on a massive scale already.

you just refuse to see what is out of tune with your fundamentalist view of things.

That's funny coming from a nuclear zealot, who jumps on anyone who points out the problems with his preferred technology. And who is outright lying with a straight face, about the capabilities of renewables, since their use is cutting in to poor old nuclear power. Boo hoo.

San Onofre was decommissioned for political pressure.

"both reactors had to be shut down in January 2012 due to premature wear found on over 3,000 tubes in replacement steam generators"

You've got a funny definition of "political pressure".

France did nuclear and it works just fine.

Japan did nuclear, and it worked out just fine... until they had problems. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, nearly everyone would say it didn't work out quite so well.

Worldwide, there are over 400GW worth of nuclear generating capacity, while solar+wind worldwide is what, less than 10% that ?

PV panels didn't exist in the 50s. Solar and wind haven't had remotely as long to scale-up. They are now being installed at a break-neck pace, and will eventually dominate.

Nuclear is expensive upfront, but extremely cheap over the 60-80 years a new nuclear powerplant should operate if properly maintained.

Obviously you can't point to any nuclear power plants that have been operational for 80 years, so that's a BS theoretical figure.

Meanwhile, none of San Onofre's three units have operated for more than 30 years, before decommissioning. That's probably a more accurate figure for the life-span of a reactor. So I'd say you'll have to at least double your lifetime cost figures to be accurate.

Solar is an extremely lousy option for Germany.

Nobody mandated solar, people just decided it would work and be profitable. Germany got a lot of wind power built as well, but apparently solar also works well enough to be worth the investment.

The prices for electricity in Germany are insane, but there's no question that they need to get away from reliance on Russian natural gas as quickly as possible, and if solar helps that process along, so be it.

Is solar 'affordable' with or without subsidy?

Depends on location, usage, and interest rates... In many locations (deserts, mostly), consumer rooftop PV solar absolutely is cheaper than buying grid power, after less than 20 years, without even counting the subsidizes.

http://www.solar-estimate.org/

But then again, coal, nuclear, and natural gas get many subsidizes of their own, so it's not a fair comparison.

False confession of guilt as part of a plea bargain is also perjury but it happens all the time.

Frankly, I'm not sure why Aereo thought that an array of tiny antennas was a "magic wand" to let them avoid fees

Arguing on a subject you are ignorant of, isn't a good way to go. Read the law, it specifically talks about shared antennas.

Since they are Supreme Court justices, they can utterly ignore political and corporate pressure and rule any way they damn well please

In theory, everyone else can, too. Reality is that they don't, though, because they all have something to gain. Supreme court justices routinely accept money, accommodations, and gifts from big organizations.

What, exactly, is your point?

You said: "cable and satellite providers must pay retransmission fees, but Aereo avoided them."

Cable providers can avoid them in the same way Aereo did.

Aereo thought that because they were pulling the feed off of an individual broadcast antenna, they didn't have to pay the same fees

Aereo thought that following the law would keep them safe from the millions of dollars in lawyers the broadcasters would throw at them. Their legal interpretation remains sound. But under enough pressure and money, the courts will make anything legal, or illegal, to suit major multinational corporations, at the expense of startups.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

Looks like /code may have stripped some of your HTML. Allow me to help:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/i...

Assuming this means Aereo will have to shut down now.

Actually, it may just mean live streaming of TV is off the table, but DVRing is okay.

Or it could mean you'll have to buy (or rent) an actual DVR and antenna which will be hosted in the data center on your behalf. On the plus side, this could mean the elimination of the geographic restrictions they currently have on the service...

Guess I'll have to figure out a way to get OTA reception, but from all the research I've done, where I live the signal's aren't very strong / reliable.

There are very few places in the US where that's a problem, and I bet Aereo hasn't covered any of them.

The most common problem is people living in multi-story apartments where the landlord can forbid you from installing a rooftop antenna, where reception will be best. Still, if you're above ground level, and have a balcony or just a window facing roughly in the same direction, you've got a hell of a good chance of being able to receive a good TV signal with a proper antenna.

TV Fool is invaluable for finding out if you'll be able to get decent reception:

http://www.tvfool.com/index.ph...

If it reports signal strength greater than -110dBn at your location and at the height you'll be installing the antenna, there's an extremely good chance a relatively inexpensive antenna system like a Winegard 8800 (UHF) will offer you a good signal with minimal drop-outs.

UHF is easier in some ways, while VHF needs a large antenna that might not fit too well in a high-rise apartment, unless it can be attic or ceiling mounted out of the way, but still doable.

Just realize tvfool and my advice is general is NOT perfect. Co-channel interference can knock some channels out of contention, when they would otherwise be strong enough.

Personally I think we should have the UK model with a TV license. The programming is far superior and enriching to the minds of the citizenry.

PBS provides vastly superior content to anything you'll find in the UK. Frontline is probably the most "enriching" show available to anyone, anywhere in the world. Throw in Nova, American Experience, Secrets of the Dead, Nature, This Old House, Charlie Rose, History Detectives, etc., etc. Not to mention the absolute inundation of educational childrens programming, from the venerable Sesame Street to the more recent hours of educational cartoon shows.

You don't NEED commercial television, and can get your entire viewing time filled by PBS. So if you want the UK model so badly, why aren't you watching PBS? The answer will no-doubt be why the UK model won't work so well in the US. And that's not to mention that the UK is quickly adopting the US model with for-pay satellite television becoming pervasive.

The 30 minute nightly world news reports on the big 3 networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) are far superior to BBC or anything else, with BBC News having the standards of a tabloid, by comparison.

And don't get me started on all the TV license collection horror stories.

Aereo's workaround creates an inherently inequitable situation where cable and satellite providers must pay retransmission fees, but Aereo avoided them.

No, Cable companies could use their "OnDemand" capabilities to copy, precisely, what Aereo is doing. It just wouldn't be "Channel 7" on the dial anymore... Which really doesn't matter as most cable providers have switched to encrypted QAM, so older TVs can't receive it without a cable box in any case.

Hell, cable providers could even just include DOCSIS capabilities in their set-top boxes, and perform EXACTLY like Aereo, over the network.

Satellite providers have some technical limitations which would prevent doing the same thing as Aereo or cable, but they still have the right to negotiate pricing, and might be better off if local channel refused to offer them a decent license, and they just took local channels off the table, like they tried to do in the beginning before the Clinton-era government forced them to carry local channels.

Straw man.

Bullshit. It's a direct response to GP's stated claims.

I do not care if the entire world disagrees with me

Yeah, that's a common hallmark of just simply being wrong, and unwilling to accept it...

You're clearly arguing out of gross ignorance of the subject, asserting how things work in your fantasy world is the way things are supposed to work elsewhere. It's nonsense, and a waste of time.

It matters not how many judges or people (including the founders) agree with the violations

Yes it does. That's how it works. Laws are to be interpreted. They cannot be treated as a rigid computer program, mindlessly applied. How the founders MEANT something to be applied matters infinitely more than the particular wording.

The government only has the powers that the constitution grants it.

The government wrote the constitution, and has unlimited power to amend it. You're saying "the government only has the powers the government says it has". Besides, it's ridiculous to claim a piece of paper grants anyone any power.

When I said "the government," I obviously meant the US government.

Yes you did. You extremely narrowly construed your incorrect statement. Widening the scope of your claim just makes it patently obvious how ridiculous it really is.