Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

pcHDTV Card Available, Legal for Now

Posted by michael on from the war-on-hardware dept.

corby writes "pcHDTV has announced that their new HD-3000 Hi Definition Television Card will be shipping tomorrow, November 8th. The card is supported under Linux, and captures NTSC and ATSC video streams. It also ignores the Broadcast Flag, which means that it will be illegal in the States starting July 1st, 2005, under a recent FCC Order. If you are interested in being able to make your own decisions about what you can do with broadcast HDTV content, this is your last, best, chance."

12 of 421 comments (clear)

  1. Frosty Post from WI by scottv67 · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Badgers are undefeated! Woooo!!!

    1. Re:Frosty Post from WI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Next match: Badgers vs. Mushroom Mushroom

  2. A B or C? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    What's your guess, this post will be modded:

    a) troll
    b) offtopic
    c) other
    d) ...
    e) profit!

    1. Re:A B or C? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Your poll is ambiguous, I demand a recount.

    2. Re:A B or C? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      I voted for 'c', but every time I hit preview it came up as 'a'.

  3. Go Trojans!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Trojans are more undefeated!

  4. Re:Is that as bad as ripping the tag of your jeans by lakiolen · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Isn't it the tag off of the matress that you're not supposed to rip?

    --


    What are you expecting to find here?
  5. Re:Why? by Talthane · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    But then I remembered we've got Blair and no limitation on how often he can be re-elected...

    No country has a limit, in the sense that you mean - even the US can change that if they want to, albeit via a protracted legal process. Until the 1940s, the US didn't even have such a limit, and then it was only because Roosevelt got elected once too often. Second point; why do you assume a written constitution is automatically better than an unwritten one? For example, you can change/adapt an unwritten constitution much, much faster than a written one. My point is, things are a lot less black and white than your statement assumes...

    --
    "This is why men never share their feelings; because women always remember." -Just Shoot Me.
  6. Oh god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Bush won. Fair and square. By majority.

    Get over it.

  7. WHY ARE TROLLS MODDED AS (+3 Interesting)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Need I say more?

  8. Re:Why? (OffTopic, I know) by Jaruzel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    EvilAlien - I did your sig :)

    Btw, Windows Perl needs double quotes.

    --
    Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
  9. Re:Why? by Sophrosyne · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Why would you want a written constitution? First you are in the common law system which probably gives more rights than any written constitution could. Secondly if you look at the Canadian constitution you can see there are problems with it- it creates constitutional citizens, and is used by business more than it is by people-- Written constitutions suck- especially in a common law system.