The Failsafe? Don't release it as a real product.

In *concept* this sounds really stupidly cool. Everyone on /. has pointed out why it's not so great in reality.

However, if anyone were stupid enough to do this in reality, they're also now looking to pay for the patent licensing rights...

Remember everyone, this is a *patent filing*. Not a product announcement. Then again no one pays attention to that warning when it turns out Apple has patented some kind of solid aluminium time travel device and iPhone case so why should we start now?

Either you're a clever troll or you're too stupid to check post history, etc.

I'll save you the trouble if you're not a troll. I am not raymorris' sock puppet.

I want more details here. I generally have a disdain for Microsoft but here it seems they built a custom target to exploit.

If they did this against say, IE or some other app in the wild, sure lets ask if we should pack it up. Until then...

Either APK is truly sexist, stupid and crazy, or this is a super clever APK troll. Only if we had some sort of way for him to possibly enter credentials verifying it's actually him... :)

Now the big question, is APK sexist, crazy/stupid AND racist? Will he make the ESR hat trick?

Yeah but the mansplaining^w comments are what make slashdot great! :D

I hate replyin to ACs. But, no. What sped up the iPhone and iPad Air wasn't the low resolution. We aren't talking about gamin or graphics performance, we are talking about raw CPU performance.

The transition to 64 bit wasn't the secret sauce, the secret sauce was that a lot of legacy CPU behavior in 32 bit mode went away. So when running in pure 64 bit mode, the CPU was way more efficient.

It's like the x64 transition.

Heaven forbid anyone let facts get in the way of righteous online indignation.

Don't blame apple for googles crappy IMAP hack.

hiphop/hack might not be pure PHP but if you're a PHP programmer, you can figure out and pick up hiphop and/or hack.

I know they had Sling branding on the box, didn't know if the delivery mechanism was the same.

Still, Fox is shooting themselves in the feet here.

What I'm curious about is how the system is implemented and will that matter?

If they're using Slingbox style implementation and using the customer's own outbound connection to stream, then things are way less murky for Dish.

If they're using their own infrastructure to serve out shows, then things are less clear about retransmission rights. Given the vast amount of storage needed, I don't think they are.

I suspect this will be a home run for Dish. They ARE paying the piper, and they're handing customers what is essentially a slingbox with a satellite STB. Unlike Aereo, I think Dish has it's ducks in a row.

"San Francisco logic" I'm going to use this next time I explain to someone why having a business where an Internet startup selling 10 dollars worth of quarters for 15 bucks is a STUPID STUPID STUPID idea.

The real answer is that it's not *free* it's free *to you* in exchange for some of your peers giving up their demographic information to advertisers. Sound familiar? It's not free for the local CableCo to rebroadcast. It'd be like putting together an app that interfaces with Facebook, down to the private APIs, better than Facebook's own website or app and charging 5 bucks for it.

If I spent $X Million financing and producing Y TV show, then sell the ads to pay for it, and you come along and rebroadcast that same signal at 5 dollar/pound/euro/etc a month, you've profited off of my copyrighted work.

That's the problem. It's not so much losing money, it's that Aereo is taking for free what cost some network a ton of cash to produce. That's not right.

That's like if I took all of your slashdot posts, compiled them into a book and sold it with out giving you any of the cut.

Yeah but you live and work in your office, contrary to the analogy presented earlier(Parent? Grand Parent? GGP?), it's not similar to Aereo "renting" you an apartment and then renting you a DVR, then renting you access to a remote desktop setup.

They're selling access to someone else's content in no uncertain terms. Everything in their marketing was designed to tell the consumer, "Subscribe to our product, get OTA TV." That's illegal.

Quite right.

Get a better antenna. Or sign up for a service that does have rebroadcast agreements with the local TV stations. Most satellite providers will do this.

Not everyone has cable TV, and the ability to get OTA broadcasts is probably part of their agreements with sponsors.

Plus, this *does* happen with UHF and really awful FM radio stations. Low power, poor broadcast quality... They also happen to have the worst advertising on the public airwaves because no one can get the signal.

(I only know this because there was a paranoid conspiracy theory radio show I'd listen to on the way to work for the lulz, I'd periodically check in on them during the day. Same with UHF TV.)