As someone who's used Windows 8; you are able to install arbitrary software in Desktop mode. Maybe not arbitrary Metro apps; but who cares about that?

It's a conflict of interest. Are the judges going to be impartial? No. The Jury? No. Seriously, if Snowden got drug back to the US; the trial would probably be a total sham as they've already marked him for death. We don't see the difference between a whistleblower and treason because they don't want to. Mess with the government; they'll kill you. I mean, how many senators and representatives were calling to have him tried for treason and executed? There's absolutely zero way I feel a federal judge will not be biased in this.

I feel the same way about trials involving police officers. Two officers enjoy beating up a homeless man and have video as well as audio proving these two were *clearly* enjoying beating this man to death; bragging about it. Think they went to jail? No, a jury found them innocent. Innocent. There it was, plain clear proof they did this but they couldn't get convicted. Why? You think that jury's going to be impartial? The officers in courtroom are going to find out who they are and make thier life absolute hell if they convict the person. Do we have proof of this? No. But it seems to be the only way officers can get away with murdering someone on camera.

The entire justice system is a giant effing joke. Liberty and justice for all? Not anymore; we have no liberty, we have no justice; and those in power just simply don't care enough to listen to people.

This was on WSJ; so all I saw was a bunch of faded text behind a window telling me to pay up or leave. I wish slashdotters wouldn't link to pay-wall sources. Some of us currently can't afford to pay for this stuff, so we're left wondering just what the hell the rest of you are talking about.

The Sidekick devices had much better keyboards. In fact, after all my use of modern smart phone keyboards; the Sidekick is *still* the one I compare everything to. Let's not forget the only thing Microsoft ever got out of buying that platform was the keyboard; which they put on an attachment for the 360.

The day will come when cable-cutters will be left with fewer options. The channels and networks make more off re-transmission fees than they do from advertisers. They love you if you have cable; because you're basically paying for something already "free" (if it's not rolled in to your monthly rates; you're paying a seperate "retransmission fee" on your bill, look at it). Quite frankly; the networks don't really care if you're watching them or not; because they're already getting paid. They've threatened to leave the air and switch to cable-only distribution; a move the FCC won't allow them to do. That one service that was streaming networks for $8/month (whose name I cannot remember) is a prime example. All they were doing was wiring you in to an antenna with an OTA tuner and place-shifting device; something that doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of public retransmission. Yet, they still sued and got the company shut down because "it was threatening our business model". Getting eyes on the programming/channel obviously *IS NOT* what the business model of TV networks are; it's to extort money through retransmission agreements.

But they're not the only ones to blame; you can point a stiff finger at the writers. Remember the writers strike? It was all about lack of payment for online streaming of shows. Brodcast it on TV; it's one rate; stream it online and it's another rate entirely. The writers wanted more money because more eyes were on the programming; this takes more money out of the networks pocket...so it's their way of saying "We paid for this once; now it's up to you."

It's capitalism at it's finest. You can blame whoever you want...not one single party is responsible.

Do they really think that will happen? He blew the cover on the country's illegal spy program, most people in the government wanted him dead. You hear that, dead! They wanted him back in the country so they could kill him for treason. I'm really surprised they didn't order a drone strike on him and claim nothing happened. They'll never grant him clemency. They revoked his citizenship and the only way the government will let him back in is in a box. Sure, the program breaks the law. The government has already made it known they don't want to follow their own laws becuase it prevents them doing their spying and everything else they can to revoke our rights. This isn't the action ofnanfree country, this is the same crap North Korea would pull. Were no better than the communist dictatorship regime they tell us they're protecting us from. Voting isn't helping, ever asshole that gets elected is probably told "this is how it works, and if you try to change it you'll meet the same fate as JFK."

Next thing you know it'll be people coming in your house every day. If they're allowed to search your laptop without reason; *someone, somewhere* will use this to illegally everything. The Fourth Amendment had a good run; but this past-precedent will lead to it's invalidation. What's next? Free speech (which we barely have); the right to plead the fifth (which you can give up because a judge decides it). I feel like they've been violating the ninth just to get their way.

We need to just stop international travel. We need to stop leaving the country and people need to stop visiting. I can't think of a good reason for someone to visit the US anyway. "Greatest country in the world", if you consider treating everyone like a suspect great; if you consider getting people to rally behind the bill of rights and chanting "freedom" while at the same thing ripping these freedoms from under the people.

America isn't great; the only thing it's good at is being an example of how corporate greed and the greed of people can corrupt a great system; and how they can use this to oppress people.

America sucks. There, I said it.

I have BoA. I do not have a "full" checking account; just the basic eBanking account. Works like a checking account; the only difference is I can't go in and use a teller for deposits. I've never paid a fee. Never. Even when I accidently overdrew once; I was easily able to get the overdraft fee refunded. Maybe you people aren't reading *all* the fine print when you sign up for an account; therefore when you get hit with a fee you aren't expecting it. Flat out calling a bank a douche because *you're too damn lazy to read every bit of fine print* isn't the bank's fault, it's yours. It's like an EULA, you gotta read it.

They *COULD* have upgraded to all new POS systems; but they decided to give some people jobs in retrofitting stuff.

Are you trying to say that cable doesn't stoop to the same tactics? "Comcast has the fastest in-home wifi!"

That may be true; but I don't need 150mbps Wireless-N when the internet won't run more than 10.

Here's the reason this happened.

Too many people were signing up *just* for cable internet and then pirating the cable signal. It's all in the same RF bandwidth; all they had to do was split it to a TV. Digital solved it; to a degree; but they still had people pirating to get locals. Since they pay high retransmission fees for local channels; it's still considered piracy.

One of the providers here kept it reasonable by keeping the internet QAM on separate lines at the node; and connecting a house to one or both; that way you couldn't pirate the TV signal by signing up for internet.

But, essentially; you're subsidizing a cable TV subscription to recover fees they'll lose should you decide to pirate the signal. The recent legislation allowing them to encrypt *every channel* probably won't help bring this down; as they'll take whatever money they can get.

I also find your comment on "wired for residential" confusing. This is not like POTS days. A business account is really nothing more than a standard account with a few additional incentives; usually faster repair service, guaranteed service, etc.

"What are you going to do when the TV providers 'win' and you will have to verify subscription to a pay-service before you can stream anything?"

Hulu has already started this trend; I'm sure once the technology exists to a "universal" degree; all the other providers will have to fall in line.

Cable TV: one way or another; we're going to get your money; even if you don't subscribe to us.

You're incorrect.

Cable companies have to negotiate retransmit fees on *everything*. I just wrote a comment about the rates cable companies have to pay locals in reference to that streaming service that has all the networks angry.

Rates are negotiated on a "per-subscriber" basis. That means your cable company is paying a fee, per-person, to carry the channel. No, I'm not thinking of premium networks; which is I'm sure the thought in your head right now. I'm talking *every channel they are legally not required to carry*. The list of channels they are *legally* required to carry is actually quite small; PGE (Public, Government, Educational) channels and local channels that have enacted the "must-carry" clause.

Everything else, though; has to be negotiated. Your cable system has to pay your local network affiliates/channels to be carried on their system. All of your "basic" cable channels; they also have a transmission agreement. Premium channels even have a retransmission agreement.

Basic cable channels are funded by a mix of advertisements and these transmission agreements; thinking that advertisers solely fund a channel anymore is ridiculous. For one thing; advertisers don't want to pay big rates for national coverage because there's no guarantee their ads will be seen. As part of a retransmission agreement; a cable operator is allowed to insert their own advertisements over top of whatever is being broadcast. This includes local channels too. You might be thinking there's some FCC requirement that makes cable operators provide locals; and you'd be right. Except it's essentially now boiled down to two basic requirements: cable providers have to offer a *very basic* package of just local channels; and they must carry a channel that's invoked the "must-carry" rule. This was created because small independent broadcasters were often ignored by cable providers; refusing to carry them so they could offer more non-local programming. The 1992 act made rules that allowed small stations to invoke must-carry status, to force the cable channel to give them bandwidth. It also set up rules for banning "out-of-market" channels. In reality; it's a bit more complex than that; but it gave local broadcasters the option of requiring a retransmission consent; or invoking must-carry. Of course; if your cable provider agrees to pay retransmission for a local broadcaster; they too, get ads inserted over top. The most famous was last year during an NFL playoff game when Comcast interrupted the end of a play to advertise their recent promotion.

Advertisers are the ones getting the shaft, so it's no surprise they won't pay big bucks.

The fact is; nothing is solely funded by advertisers when it comes to cable. You're paying for all the channels in your package as well as paying to see local channels. Cable companies have their own advertising they place on top of a broadcasters adverts. Prime examples are when a provider drops a local affilate because a retransmission agreement can't be reached; or you lose a bunch of "basic" channels because of a agreement not being made. If advertisers were the only ones solely funding programming; why would they care what they get from a cable company? Why do you think it sometimes takes a while for a new cable channel to creep up on your provider? If it was up to the cable companies; they'd add *any* channel they thought would add value to their service. However, they have to come to an agreement on how much they're going to pay for the right to carry that channel; because the advertisers don't fund the channel 100%. Some channels; like C-Span; are solely funded from retransmission agreements.

Oh, you'll pay. The cable company will find out and you'll be charged for theft of services.

If you've ever had your provider get in to a deadlock contract with an OTA station; you'll realize retransmission fees are a scam.

According to the law; a TV station has two options; they can negotiate a retransmission fee for a cable system; or invoke "must-carry", in which the cable provider is *required* to carry them. The station does not have to pay for a "must-carry" station; they are however required by law to carry them. That's bad for the cable company because they have to dedicate QAM space to a channel they may not want. However, if a cable provider negotiates a retransmission fee; they are allowed at that point to insert "local" ads over OTA stations.

In reality; the stations are only screaming about *potential* loss of profits here. The real losers are the local advertisers; who are paying the bills to keep the station's OTA signal running. Thier ads will only get seen by people with OTA; and those times when a local company isn't inserting ads over airtime.

This is why it's common in some areas for a cable/satellite provider to lose the right to carry a local channel. The station wants more money to reach it's demographic; and when a deal cannot be struck, the channel becomes unavailable. If it's a network affiliate; you lose that network entirely. FCC laws prohibit an "outside" station to be piped in to another market. Ironically; this law was made to protect local advertisers, ensuring they had a better chance to be seen in a market where their ads are already possibly being covered over with whatever promotion your provider is running this month.

The ruling that Aereo is legal was upheld by an appellate court already. They found the place-shifting technology (which is what this is); did not constitute public performance. Likewise; since there was an individual receiver and antenna for each user; there was no breaking of any law.

A2B TV does a similar thing; only with satellite TV. And they've even changed since I first found them. Used to be they'd get you set up with a cable TV account at whatever provider was local to the datacenter, along with a slingbox and "hosting space"; thier new model seems to use satellite TV and you have to send them a receiver. I own a Slingbox (two of them actually); and it's perfectly legal to have them hooked up to my TV's; of course I do pay for a TV service. But what about the Slingbox I sent to my friend in Texas with an OTA receiver so I could watch my favorite football team? Legally, it's my receiver and my hardware; so it *still* falls under placeshifting; and it's still not public retransmission.

Networks are going to complain and bitch because they're "getting thier business model stolen"; they seem to forget thier original business model was providing a service for free that was funded by advertisers; that's shifted in to a service that's still provided free, but paid for by cable and satellite companies. I can't blame advertisers for wanting to pay next to nothing; would *you* want to pay top-dollar for advertising knowing the majority of your demographic on cable or satellite might not see it? Of course not.

Again, it's just the networks sitting there looking at the potential profits they're losing because a lousy business model they created failed; one that was doomed for failure in the first place. What were they doing all those years when analog C-Band was still dominate; and they did not scramble the network fee? All those people were watching network TV without local inserted ads. What were they doing before the 1992 act and cable providers could literally pipe in any OTA channel their antenna farm could pick up; you know, back when the FCC mandated providers had to carry locals. Complicate the matter by the fact the FCC has allowed cable broadcasters to begin encrypting OTA feeds; which were once required to be left unencrypted.

The real issue is if they get this declared illicit; what's to stop them going further? They could begin saying multi-room DVR is illegal; worse yet, they could begin saying those of us who pay for a TV service are no longer allowed to stream them in manners that 100% comply with the law now.

Networks don't care about *you*; they care about *money*. They care more about money than they do about eyes; which is funny, because usually more eyes on the channel equates to more money. Oh, wait; they kind of killed the whole making money off local advertisers. I guess it's convenient the digital switchover caused a decrease in reception range over analog; people on the fringe have to get cable now.

The entire point behind cable TV was to get local OTA channels in to areas that suffered from reception issues. In fact, it was started by a TV shop owner who wanted to sell more TV's in a mountainous area where reception was spotty for some of his customers. In those cases; it wasn't even retransmission; it was simply hooking someone up to an existing antenna. CATV stands for "Community Antenna TeleVision"; not "CAble TeleVision".

The only losers in this are the consumer and possibly people who create placeshifting devices. One can only hope if the the networks leave OTA; they too will fail. I'm sure the FCC wouldn't be too happy if OTA broadcasters left either; but I offhand don't remember the regulations on all that. The best solution would be to repeal the 1992 regulation and let it go back to being a free-for-all. I'd love to be able to watch Baltimore locals again.