Stealing satellite

Nah, it would come in second to the all-purpose, I want to justify something to myself statement above.

Okay the Corp BS Law just went to third place.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman
Loading thread data ...

Most user agreements specify use on a single computer at a time. If your computer's stolen, you can install the software on another. Virtually all retail versions of software can be moved to another computer. However....

If the software is designated OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer), it is licensed only for the original computer. If that original computer is stolen, you're out of luck.

Reply to
HeyBub

"SteveB" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.infowest.com:

it's not even a "comparison".

Reply to
Jim Yanik

Beware a man who says he is doing god's work, he's probably lying. Like someone who says "I'm from the govt and am here to help you" ;)

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

Reply to
nick hull

Talk to God about that one since he's sending out the rays. He's

*NOT* by any stretch of the imagination or dictionary definition sending out the satellite signals you are stealing.
Reply to
KLS

A voice of reason!!!!

Reply to
KLS

"An additional receiver does how affect those expenses."

WTF does that mean?

Wait a minute. I don't even want to know. I've heard all from you that I need to.

Good Bye.

Plonk

Steve

Reply to
SteveB

You are an absolute idiot or a troll (I believe both). Crawl in your hole and go away. Bob-tx

Reply to
Bob

You liberals sure have a sense of entitlement! What a bunch of rationalizing crooks.

Reply to
salty

if the thief is using a deactivated receiver provided by the satellite company, even if the receiver was originally sold, its price was subsidized, so the sat provider is losing twice

once for stolen programming and once for helping pay for the receiver thats being used for theft....

Reply to
hallerb

The problem I described above is only with some software (and this is increasingly common) that tries to ENFORCE that by requiring an internet connection and somehow sending this information somewhere (that is it's spyware, like Windows XP) then refusing to install if it doesn't get the response it "wants". One reason I'm now preferring free (especially open source) software. It's unlikely to do such stuff.

It may have been written to verify something in the computer's BIOS. I was not referring to that.

Reply to
Mark Lloyd

I notice you ignored much of what I said. Any reason for that?

Currently nonsense, since no one has explained how the author got YOUR money in the first place.

Reply to
Mark Lloyd

I asked you to think about something. Could you do that?

"An additional receiver does not affect those expenses. By not paying for them."

Is that suppised to mean something? How about responding to what was actually said?

Reply to
Mark Lloyd

That sentence does look weird. Looks like a spelling checker F-up. The real sentence is,

"An additional receiver does not affect those expenses."

Reply to
Mark Lloyd

I could explain it to you, but could never do YOUR thinking for you.

Absolute nonsense.

Anyway, I wasn't doing that (getting anything I hadn't paid for), just engaged in the "hopeless" task of trying to get people to think for themselves a little.

"No good deed goes unpunished" :-)

Reply to
Mark Lloyd

Something obviously beyond the scope of what I was talking about.

Reply to
Mark Lloyd

I don't think he ignored anything. He responded directly to your post that implied it's legal and OK to take a book from a library and copy it. PS, it's not. It's a violation of the copyright laws.

The author isn't getting your money when you copy it. Isn't that the whole point? The bottom line, it's illegal to take a book from the library and then copy it. You have a problem with that? It's very obvious to most of us how it's not right and how it deprives the author of income. If you had BOUGHT the book you now have, it would have put money into the author's pocket. By copying it from the library, you now have a copy for free. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Reply to
trader4

That would be confusing yourself (when you watch TV without paying for it) and everybody. Why would you do that?

I think that's true. I have seen lots of ads for hacked cable boxes at really high prices in magazines.

What I was posting has nothing to do with sanctions, but with the act )of receiving cable.satellite signals) itself. Disorganized thinking is an increasingly common problem.

Yes. I never said otherwise.

Reply to
Mark Lloyd

Am I reading this right? Sure looks like you just labeled Jim Yanik as a liberal. If so, that's absurd. Look around.

There sure are a lot of ethically challenged people in this group. Did you know that judging people as a group is the definition of prejudice?

Reply to
Dan Espen

Maybe you haven't been paying attention to what Jim Yanik has been posting for a very long time here. I have listened to "Yanik the panic" for years as he talked about entitlements, and people who don't want to pay their own way. He attributes those things to liberals. I just applied his own views to him. Clearly he's a liberal. He has told us how to identify liberals, and that's what I did. He's obviously way to the left of Hillary Clinton.

Reply to
salty

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.