Exactly, since I bougth my digital TV I've been using an almost 30 year old indors UVF/VHF antenna that looks a bit like this http://www.severoroth.com.br/m... but much older.
With this broad definition of "retransmit", the most normal aerial setup is completely illegal because: the antenna captures the signal and then "retransmit" it trough a cable to a circuit inside the TV which then "retransmits" it to several other internal circuits before reaching the screen which then "retransmits" it again as light to my eyes.
With a "retransmit" definition as broad as the one used in this decision, just watching anything makes you a felon because your eyes are capturing the light signal and "retransmitting" it trough the optical nerve to the brain. It is clear that from now on every one of us needs either a broadcasting license or to close our illegal retransmitting setup (a.k. eyes).
So it is ilegal to watch TV at my office because I can't sleep in my office?
And a person living in a basement (you know, like the tipical slashdoter), can never legaly get aerial TV because that would entail puting an antena and running a wire on other person's roof?
They didn't "profit by selling everyone else's content", they profited by selling access to publicly available content to which the clients already had the right to watch but didn't have the tecnical means do do so. They where just a antena renting service.
The TV channels decided to distribute their content for free, it shouldn't be ilegal to provide means for people to reach this content. If a drive-in theater decides to screen films for free that doesn't make it ilegal for taxis and buses to charge to ferry people to the theater.
They will use locally administered MAC addresses (you know, those with the 7th bit set to 1 instead of the traditional 0) which are not assigned to any manufacturer. (source: image in the twit)
..., the USPS is the envy of the world.
With phrases lake this one I'll go out on a limb and guess that you never left the USA (or that you didn't pay much attention when you did). Just because something in the USA works well, or even is the best in the USA, doesn't mean it is automaticaly the best in the world, or that people in other countries lay awake at night dreaming with such a marvel.
You wan't to see a postal service to be envy of? Check the Brazilian one, it is at least as good and reliable as the USPS and that includes delivering mail to tiny vilages in the middle of the Amazon jungle.
They share a network, it is called the Internet. Comcast customers are not paying just for access to Comcast subnet (do they think they are a BBS?), customers are paying to access to the whole Internet at the contracted speed.
Now, I understand that Comcast cannot be blamed for slow speeds when connecting to a 3rd party if the slowdown, the funnel, is inside the 3rd party network, but that is not the case here. The slowdowns where caused because Comcast failed to contract a fast enough link (or peering agreement) to a specific part of the internet. The funnel was at their network border and consequently their responsability. They failed to provide a service that their customers are paying for.
If Comcast doesn't have to provide full bandwidth to 3rd party networks then I found a new business model: I'll set-up a small ISP providing gigabit internet for hundreds of customers and then contract a single gigabit link upstream (or even a slower one, maybe a 54kbps dial-up), after all I cannot promise full bandwidth to a 3rd party.
These surgeries are safer and less painful than traditional gut-opening ones.
So while some are no doubt botched, overall people are better with than without, a net gain.
You cannot say that all robot surgeries are better and safer because that is not true. This new surgical technique has different pros and cons, reduces some risks but increases others, so it's use needs to be evaluated (epidemiological studies) for each kind of surgery in order to assert if it is beneficial for that kind of surgery. New things are not better just because they are new, they need to be tested and proven.
An example from a couple of years ago, some studies shown that robot prostate cancer surgery decreased the risk of in-hospital complications, but increased the risk of impotence and incontinence. So in this case (prostate cancer) robot surgery does not shows a clear net gain.