Comparing two DVB PCI cards

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.mpeg-dvb (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:08:19 GMT, "DRLev" <fake@ddress.tv> wrote:

>I drove past the Mall on my way home yesterday afternoon. The parking lot was full for
>free cars there for the taking.

Find any on your roof?

>
>
>"Gary J Tait" <classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:iv8p11pbktn6t3ic4k2v5q4l8el77jqpmk@4ax.com...
>| On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:42:34 -0500, kryppy <kryppy@gmail.cc> wrote:
>|
>| >On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:22:06 -0500, Gary J Tait
>| ><classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote:
>| >
>| >>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:00:32 -0600, BoobTube <nomail@noway.no> wrote:
>| >>
>
>| >
>| Which is one of the theives excuses for stealing.
>| Cost has nothing to do with it. Only the provider decides if it is
>| free, and if the provider decides to charge a fee for their channel,
>| and you defeat the protections that protect that wish, you are
>| stealing.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.mpeg-dvb (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:43:33 -0500, Gary J Tait
<classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote:

>>It is called free because of the cost.
>>


>Which is one of the theives excuses for stealing.
>Cost has nothing to do with it. Only the provider decides if it is
>free, and if the provider decides to charge a fee for their channel,
>and you defeat the protections that protect that wish, you are
>stealing.


You are missing the point entirely. It is called "FREE TV" by the
thieves BECAUSE of the COST to THEM for the service.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.mpeg-dvb (More info?)

I am not missing the point. The thieves are rationalizing as Gary said.


"kryppy" <kryppy@gmail.cc> wrote in message
news:1aeq1157ktrrbt9ij0vc3abcuma9ifm2dd@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:43:33 -0500, Gary J Tait
| <classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote:
|
| >>It is called free because of the cost.
| >>
|
|
| >Which is one of the theives excuses for stealing.
| >Cost has nothing to do with it. Only the provider decides if it is
| >free, and if the provider decides to charge a fee for their channel,
| >and you defeat the protections that protect that wish, you are
| >stealing.
|
|
| You are missing the point entirely. It is called "FREE TV" by the
| thieves BECAUSE of the COST to THEM for the service.
|
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.mpeg-dvb (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:48:07 GMT, "DRLev" <fake@ddress.tv> wrote:

>I am not missing the point. The thieves are rationalizing as Gary said.


You guys are killing me. No one is rationalizing anything. They are
attaching a practical name to something.
Hot TV sounds dumb. Stolen TV sounds stupid. Rip Off TV is reserved
for describing the providers, what else is left?
Given it is against the law, do you really expect people to come right
out and implicate themselves with a poorly chosen name?
I never liked 'testing'. I'm glad you guys have beat them people up so
bad they now use free tv like everyone else.

All the zealots, all the thieves and all the on the fence people know
what 'Free TV' is a euphemism for.

Funny thing about all this is neither of you have a problem with
people breaking the US and Canadian laws regarding 'GRAY market'
(LMFAO) subscriptions.


>"kryppy" <kryppy@gmail.cc> wrote in message
>news:1aeq1157ktrrbt9ij0vc3abcuma9ifm2dd@4ax.com...
>| On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:43:33 -0500, Gary J Tait
>| <classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote:
>|
>| >>It is called free because of the cost.
>| >>
>|
>|
>| >Which is one of the theives excuses for stealing.
>| >Cost has nothing to do with it. Only the provider decides if it is
>| >free, and if the provider decides to charge a fee for their channel,
>| >and you defeat the protections that protect that wish, you are
>| >stealing.
>|
>|
>| You are missing the point entirely. It is called "FREE TV" by the
>| thieves BECAUSE of the COST to THEM for the service.
>|
>|
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.mpeg-dvb (More info?)

Show me one time that I have ever said anything in defense of gray market.

The thieves are rationalizing. If they had any cajones at all they would not seek
politically correct terms for their activity. There is a difference between a service
being free and its being stolen. My analogy of the mall parking lot fits the
situation. Those cars are not free. To be free the person providing the service or the
property must will willing to give it away. Free is a two sided coin. For something to
be free there is a prerequisite that there is no charge for it.

Direct me to one US law or FCC regulation that prohibits gray market. I have looked
for one and I cannot find one. I do not know if it is legal or not. This is precisely
why I avoid discussions of gray market. You are LYFAO at your own imagination because
I have made not statements for or against gray market.

If they had any concerns about implicating themselves it would be to their advantage
not to discuss the activity in public.


"kryppy" <kryppy@gmail.cc> wrote in message
news:s3mq119tt8l61hr08va4u3577pk6ud7gmd@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:48:07 GMT, "DRLev" <fake@ddress.tv> wrote:
|
| >I am not missing the point. The thieves are rationalizing as Gary said.
|
|
| You guys are killing me. No one is rationalizing anything. They are
| attaching a practical name to something.
| Hot TV sounds dumb. Stolen TV sounds stupid. Rip Off TV is reserved
| for describing the providers, what else is left?
| Given it is against the law, do you really expect people to come right
| out and implicate themselves with a poorly chosen name?
| I never liked 'testing'. I'm glad you guys have beat them people up so
| bad they now use free tv like everyone else.
|
| All the zealots, all the thieves and all the on the fence people know
| what 'Free TV' is a euphemism for.
|
| Funny thing about all this is neither of you have a problem with
| people breaking the US and Canadian laws regarding 'GRAY market'
| (LMFAO) subscriptions.
|
|
| >"kryppy" <kryppy@gmail.cc> wrote in message
| >news:1aeq1157ktrrbt9ij0vc3abcuma9ifm2dd@4ax.com...
| >| On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:43:33 -0500, Gary J Tait
| >| <classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote:
| >|
| >| >>It is called free because of the cost.
| >| >>
| >|
| >|
| >| >Which is one of the theives excuses for stealing.
| >| >Cost has nothing to do with it. Only the provider decides if it is
| >| >free, and if the provider decides to charge a fee for their channel,
| >| >and you defeat the protections that protect that wish, you are
| >| >stealing.
| >|
| >|
| >| You are missing the point entirely. It is called "FREE TV" by the
| >| thieves BECAUSE of the COST to THEM for the service.
| >|
| >|
| >
|

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.mpeg-dvb (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:44:11 -0500, kryppy <kryppy@gmail.cc> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:48:07 GMT, "DRLev" <fake@ddress.tv> wrote:
>
>>I am not missing the point. The thieves are rationalizing as Gary said.
>
>
>You guys are killing me. No one is rationalizing anything. They are
>attaching a practical name to something.
>Hot TV sounds dumb. Stolen TV sounds stupid. Rip Off TV is reserved
>for describing the providers, what else is left?
>Given it is against the law, do you really expect people to come right
>out and implicate themselves with a poorly chosen name?
>I never liked 'testing'. I'm glad you guys have beat them people up so
>bad they now use free tv like everyone else.
>
>All the zealots, all the thieves and all the on the fence people know
>what 'Free TV' is a euphemism for.
>
>Funny thing about all this is neither of you have a problem with
>people breaking the US and Canadian laws regarding 'GRAY market'
>(LMFAO) subscriptions.
>

That is because, at least, the provider gets paid, unlike when you
steal, they don't.
I do, BTW, have a problem being ignorant as to why they simply cannot
openly have that choice (namely those that equate the Canadian
government with certain socialist or religious regimes that ban
satellite TV)..

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.mpeg-dvb (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:58:28 -0500, Gary J Tait
<classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote:


>>Funny thing about all this is neither of you have a problem with
>>people breaking the US and Canadian laws regarding 'GRAY market'
>>(LMFAO) subscriptions.
>>
>
>That is because, at least, the provider gets paid, unlike when you
>steal, they don't.


Ok.

>I do, BTW, have a problem being ignorant as to why they simply cannot
>openly have that choice (namely those that equate the Canadian
>government with certain socialist or religious regimes that ban
>satellite TV)..

I don't understand either. I wonder why Canada allows it citizens
unfiltered internet. What will happen when all TV comes over it?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.mpeg-dvb (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 00:51:31 -0500, kryppy <kryppy@gmail.cc> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:58:28 -0500, Gary J Tait
><classicsat@nospam_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>Funny thing about all this is neither of you have a problem with
>>>people breaking the US and Canadian laws regarding 'GRAY market'
>>>(LMFAO) subscriptions.
>>>
>>
>>That is because, at least, the provider gets paid, unlike when you
>>steal, they don't.
>
>
>Ok.
>
>>I do, BTW, have a problem being ignorant as to why they simply cannot
>>openly have that choice (namely those that equate the Canadian
>>government with certain socialist or religious regimes that ban
>>satellite TV)..
>
>I don't understand either. I wonder why Canada allows it citizens
>unfiltered internet. What will happen when all TV comes over it?
>


Go to www.sho.com and see what happens when a Canadian tries to get US
content over the net.