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.

The violation of the constitution and people's fundamental liberties is indeed nothing new, but that doesn't mean it's justified.

Claiming this particular violation is going to spell the end of the Union (while all previous ones did not) is utter nonsense.

The constitution is a suicide pact.

Damn near everyone disagrees with you.... Including the founders, who offered tools to amend it as needed for changing times.

Also notice that fundamental rights like freedom of speech are not limitless, despite those limits not being enumerated in the constitution. It's a framework, not a how-to.

It's the very document that grants the government any power

There are plenty of governments around the world, which do not have a constitution to speak of.

Sadly, the real threat to our freedom is from within. It's from people in government who fancy themselves on the side of the angels and who think it's okay to bend or break the rulesâ"a.k.a. the Constitutionâ"to defend the "homeland."

The constitution has been bent from the very beginning.

John Adams with the Alien and Sedition Act.

Jefferson with the Louisiana purchase.

And pretty much every president since.

Don't act like this is anything new. We've always had to balance rights against pragmatism. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." And now, like before, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

No person shall be punished for any crime without a trial

So the Bin Laden raid (and all of war, really) was unconstitutional?

It's a good thing that some of those weapons were brought to the prototype stage, but not to production. Today, there's a strong tendency to have only one program underway for major aircraft, leading to production of marginal aircraft like the F-35.

I have no clue what you're talking about. The F-35 program started with a competition between Lockheed and Boeing. Obviously, the Boeing X-32 craft was only brought to the prototype stage.

I addressed these questions in another thread:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

The equipment is not illegal for me to purchase or own just because I don't have a valid license. Only transmitting becomes illegal without a license.

Ham radio equipment has valid and legal uses. You can get a license for ham radio. You can't get a license for a jammer. There is no scenario in which it can be used, legally.

It makes no sense to claim companies should be able to market and sell a device, which has NO POSSIBLE legal use. If nothing else, devices that can emit RF have to be approved by the FCC before they can be sold, and there is their authority to ban jammers, just by another name.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to block cell phone signals inside my home?

Let's ask the FCC!

http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/j...

"Signal jammers do not respect property lines, and federal law provides no exception that allows for the private or commercial use of a jammer."

What if I want to test my home security system that relies on cell towers?

Maybe you could "passively block it", exactly as you said a few lines up.

How in the world do you know that nobody nearby is making an emergency call, when you want to test your home security system? You're opening a can of worms, for no actual benefit.

I could think of plenty of other "fair use" reasons that buying and using a cell jammer should be legal.

Again, from the FCC:

"Jammers are more than just a nuisance; they pose an unacceptable risk to public safety by potentially preventing the transmission of emergency communications. Cell phone jammers do not distinguish between social or other cell phone conversations and an emergency call to a family member or a 9-1-1 emergency responder. Similarly, GPS and Wi-Fi jammers maliciously disrupt both routine and critical communications services. Jammers could also block more than just cell phone calls; these devices could disrupt important communications services that operate on adjacent frequencies, or worse, they could disrupt all communications within a broad frequency range."

I would suggest becoming a member of the ACLU and donating to them so that they can continue standing up for everyone's civil rights.

I wouldn't. Not that they don't do good stuff, and they certainly trumpet it on their front-page. But it isn't until you're a member that you start getting the full story. It seems the overwhelming majority of their cases are dedicated to suing every municipality that doesn't immediately take down any even vaguely religious symbol that someone else put on anything that even smells like public land. Or fighting even the most reasonable laws that impose some minor and sane restrictions on late-term abortions, and whatnot.

I'd suggest sending your money to the EFF, instead. No bait-and-switch there. They advertise what they actually do, and they do plenty of good.

Maybe they "could". And yet, they didn't... Otherwise there would be a fork and possibly convergence in the ancestral tree demonstrating it.

Relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I want to be able to call an Amazon quadcopter to carry me to my destination.

Just make absolutely sure you check-mark the option:

* Group my items into as few shipments as possible. (at additional cost)