You know... you had me going there that you knew what you were talking about... until you said this:
(I ended up getting a G5 1.8 and Cinema HD LCD)
keyword there being "LCD"... You can do all the color correction you want but your images will look like crud in any decent form of printing if you don't use a CRT. Sorry but CRT contrast ratios are still an order of magnitude below, even the great LCDs from Mac.
Ever wonder why the pro digital guys still have those ungodly huge 35" Sony Trinitron monitors? It's cause they know that is what it takes to actually see what is going to get printed.
If you can't see those issues coming from an LCD then you are doing printing where ICC is mostly a null issue anyways.
Ahh... but majority does not rule in TV land, unless you are talking about majority of money.
For example... Firefly was pulling in the same viewership or more as other shows that were not cancelled at the time. The reason it got axed... because it had much higher production costs then the reality TV shows that lasted.
Remember... $50k/week on fear factor is nothing compared to paying actors and writers in NBCs mind. Fox has caught on to this fact even more and has taken drops in ratings in order to save money in production costs and hence make more money.
So for this reason... good shows with good (sometimes even extraordinary ratings) get let go and we are left with reality TV drivel
Firefly was also placed in nasty timeslots to compete for viewership in that genre...
He kindof sounds like he is willing to do almost anything necessary to start treatment... somehow I believe this means we would be willing to go see anyone qualified that could get him started on a treatment plan sooner.
Where did he say he wanted to use someone like an internet pharmacy?
It's only a felony if you arn't a real doctor. All he is asking for is a geek doctor out there that can fast track his treatment.
You want a client bridge
on
WiFi Bridging?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Tiny little boxes... connect via wireless to another AP and provide a single ethernet port out.
Senao (Engenius Tech) makes 2 nice little boxes for doing this that have 200mw transmit and the best receive thresholds on the market. This puppies have NICE radios.
You are looking for either the NL-2611 CB3 (802.11b) of the NL-3054 CB3 (802.11b/g and is also bi-mode [can operate as AP and client at same time])
Just through a network cable in place... connect this... adn ditch that USB crud.
Heh... my father and I pulled a similar trick. We found one that seemed to be particularly well balanced at the store and took it to his machine shop. This was one of the spoked ones not these new smooth plastic wheeled ones.
Anyways... So you take an air hose from the compressor and aim it so that it pushes on the spokes. About 45 seconds of this and you are quite sure you no longer wish to be holding the gyro. We set it on the floor and watched in amazement as it went 13+ minutes without even wiggling... about a minute later it finally fell over totally.
We tried getting a tachometer reading on it but could never get anything reflective enough to stick. If only we would have thought of shiny paint.:}
I'm not sure what your point is. I said nothing of the sort.
How about your statement of:
That is why you keep repeating such ridiculous things like dismissing your beliefs is hypocritical.
You say I am ridiculous for calling it hypocritical. If you are a scientist... and you claim to follow the scientific method then your duty is to follow the research where it leads you. To ignore a line of research because it does not fit the hypothesis you think is correct is hypocrisy.
Again, I did nothing of the sort. Your persecution complex is showing again.
I never said that you did... I was saying that this is what 90+% of macro-evolution scientists do. I am considered "stupid" because I don't believe all their theories. Theories are also just beliefs until they can be proven yet they treat them as if they should be blatantly obvious to any "smart" person and hence since you don't believe in them you are stupid.. dumb... ignorant...uniformed...etc.
What actual useful knowledge is gained by postulating such a thing?
What useful knowledge was gained by postulating that the world was in fact round and not flat? You make postulations... you test them... if they go nowhere then you back off but until you have at least made the attempt and failed with a proven conclusion to the opposite do not dismiss a hypothesis as "impossible" or "uninformed".
How many years ago was it that physicists laughed at for asking if gravity operated faster than the speed of light. Now we know an answer because finally someone didn't just laugh... they made several expirements to test just that.
You're showing your ignorance again.
Well sorry that I happen to be working from memory on research that I saw ignored over 10+ years ago. Doesn't it kindof make you wonder why no one is going "HMM this is odd..." still to this day? Do this date I have seen no one refute the evidence in any of the scientific journals I read (which is not EVERY one so yes I could have missed it)
I don't have time to reread the journal at this moment but if you think logically for just a second if everyone is descended from a single male or female X years ago arn't they also descended from a single couple X years ago? Unless there were multiple wives or husbands in the mix that is the only logical conclusion. Hence my statement of from a single couple.
Plus the difference in the years for the female side is apparent from the Biblical record because Noah brought his son's and their wives on to the ark. The wives would have been descended from larger set while the sons were all descended from Noah and his wife only.
Is your gos truly so pathetic that he needs you to stoop to such levels?
And now you call me a liar from a single sentence statement made flippantly to show a minor point. You could have asked how in depth my knowledge was first.
I will assume that you meant "god" instead of gos. God requires only 2 things: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'."
I am imperfect... a sinful being... I get things wrong... don't knock God because of me.
My simple reply is only this... I do not call scientists "uniformed radicallists" or any other such term just because I don't believe all of their theories. It would be WONDERFUL if 90% of the scientific community working in this area would at least act civil and return that favor.
Dismissing me as someone with lesser intellect because I believe in God and ignoring the hints in other scientific research that maybe some parts of this "god" thing are correct is idiocy at best and damnable at worst.
Everyone in the world seems to descend from a single male and female couple approximately 4500-5000 years ago. Why is it that there are only 2 researchs groups trying to figure out why. It sure seems that if we see results like this and have a historical (not to mention religion) text like the Bible giving a reason that someone should check it out in more detail.
When scientists ignore lines of research because they might "help the other side" they are hypocritical. "We are scientists follow the scientific method but we won't pay attention to this because we don't like it"
Learn what "hypocrisy" means. Again, the core of science cannot refer or rely upon magic.
"The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness"
If you profess to follow the scientific method then you should not debunk other theories just because they do not "fit" with your own. If you have proof to the contrary then state it and you have successfully debunked the opposing theory. However until you have done this don't term the user of that theory as an "unknowledgable radicallist".
Some did have religious links, but others seem to have been toys for children. Archaeologists have been digging up toys for years.
Yes... but when first found they ASSUME it is of religious significance unless they already know for a fact that it is not.
Modern scientists are brought in with the assumption that they believe in macro-evolution. This very assumption skews their work from day one and hence creates a bias. In science an unfounded bias (even when their are theories backing it up) is still not the correct usage of the scientific method.
Yet it is also 100% useless to refer or rely upon that in science. Science depends upon reproducible events. Miracles are not reproducible. Act of God are not reproducible.
I saved this one for last... we can't prove this... we won't be able to prove God exists until he comes.
However... How come all people in the known world seem to diverge from a single female and male pairing ~4500 years ago. Now the story of the flood seems to totally explain this were on the other hand I have yet to see science explain how only 2 homo-sapiens survived some climactic event that destroyed every other living homo-sapien. Several other species have had these same studies done and also seem to trace back to a small set (oddly enough coinciding with clean vs unclean animal pairings for the ark) ~4500 years ago.
To have evidence of this nature and yet call those that believe in the Bible, and hence the story of Noah's Ark, "uninformed radicallists" is wrong... just plain wrong.
There are divergent views... neither can prove the other wrong until God comes (I say until because I believe in him... others would say 'if a god comes').
There is room in my faith for science. "God did it" is not a satisfactory answer for "Why are things this way?".
Bravo! I agree 100%
I am actually glad you can't "prove" that God exists nor that everything started from a sterile big bang... it gets people thinking instead of just taking the easy route.
Interesting that you bring up Ockam's razor. Which is the simpler theory? That billions of highly unlikely events with a beginning event that came from "nothing" produced the world or that a eternal omnipotent God created it all.
Personally I find the second one as the "simpler" theory and it fits all the facts that I have run into so far where as evolution and "the big bang" are not only more complicated but have several statistical and factual problems. Granted science states they just need to "figure these out" and that there is a "logical" explanation.
I find it comforting that we can't prove either God or macro-evolution since it makes people think!
Hence the assertion that I have made on here before (which no I don't expect you to have read:} )
Religion is based on "faith" and science is based on "controlled suspension of disbelief". Neither side can ever prove the other wrong... neither can ever prove their side right... Scientists and creationists both know this yet they always treat the other side as if they are "wrong".
How can anything ever be wrong if it can never be proven either way?
In fact the only way we will get proof is (I say when because I believe in Him... you might say if) when God comes back.
See my reply to the earlier post on tidal-locking...
But also for the platypus the main problem isn't it's current design but the fact that there seem to be no divergent species leading up to it.
Every animal in this world has some form of divergence. Horses you have mules... tigers, lions and even household cats have relations. However can you find a single animal within any close degree to a platypus? Even humans as "special" as we are do not diverge much from apes and chimpanzees. Show me where ANYONE has found a fossil record or living animal that in any way is a precurser to a platypus or even a divergent animal living today.
Bats are another on of these dillemmas. Although there are many kinds of bats we have yet to find any record of link to any previous form. Was a bat evolved from mice or squirrels? What advantage did wings provide it before they actually became large enough to fly? If just "extended gliding" is the answer then we havn't flying squirrels evolved further in the last 1000+ years that we have known of their existence?
Anyways... I am ranting... the main point is that there is a HUGE amount that science doesn't know and to dismiss the fact that an omnipotent God could have created it just because they can make theories to say how it could have been done otherwise is hypocritical. To say you are searching for the truth and dismiss one avenue of research because you arn't comfortable with the possible existence of a "god" figure is stupid at best and damnable at worst.
Yes... but my post was trying to show historical views and how science is ALWAYS going to be questioned by some form of a "god" figure.
Scientists that throw out the idea of any "god" figure performing an intelligent design on our planet just because they can make theories that fit the extremely limited view of time we have makes the scientists even MORE at fault than the religous people that ignore all of sciences facts.
It is nothing but hypocrisy to claim you are doing everything scientifically and provide your theories as facts and automatically dismiss the theories of any other argument.
If the omnipotent God that I believe in as a Christian decided to make the world in 7 days I don't see ANY evidence in any scientific journal that says or even implies it is impossible. Yet daily scientists rebuke religious types as "uninformed radicalists".
Makes me think of a talk one professor of mine had in an archaeological discussion. Have you ever heard of an ancient civilization being dug up and the researchers finding a children's doll? Now we all know that kids must have played over the ages. Yet because scientists must place a meaning on everything and often preconceive that meaning we end up with hundreds of thousands of "statues" to this or that God when in reality a bunch of them were the prehistoric version of a cabbage-patch-kid.
Well put! I would mod you up but I lost the right by replying to another comment.
I still think God has a great sense of humor. I mean... how else can you explain a platypus?
"I am so gonna get these scientists... I am going to make a creature that breaks all their nice theories... and I am going to put it somewhere that will take them a while to find it"
or my other favorite: "Ahh... moon... and earth... it's beautiful. You know... if I start this moon spinning like this... and the earth movement like this... they will never get to see the other side! Lets see them explain how that just 'happened to occure'":} Science has a lot correct... but they have forgotten that they are working with "theories" and not "100% facts" there is always another possible explanation and hence always another view.
Ok... read the article. Time Warner cable sux... he has nothing to say bad about the hardware other than the crippling done by TW. He also is displeased with the channels that TW provides.
Hate to say it... but this is one place where over-the-air has kicked butt. You may not be able to get as many channels but even in podunkville where I live I can get 11 HDTV sources and they all look beautiful. My pcHDTV card renders them flawlessly on my monitor (which is set up for HDTV resolution).
Over-the-air is getting fairly standard and stable now. HD dish channels are actually starting to work out nicely now as well... but cable is gonna die if they keep moving at the current snail crawl they have going for their HD/SD rollouts.
And for those wondering about HDTV and their future.... don't go to someones house with HDTV unless you want to buy it yourself. I about killed 2 peoples credit ratings by letting them watch the Olympic ceremonies at my place.
(Current Setup 3.2Ghz/512Mb/320Gb AMD box running MythTV with a pcHDTV card displaying on a 21" CRT)
Heh... easy to get around. The MPEG stream that comes over the air has a LOT (almost 50%) repetitive data to keep the data clean even in not-so-great reception. You sell these devices as "stream cleaners" that clean up the repetitive data before it reaches your receiver hence making it easier on the receiver CPU.
Now this is just a small thing... that people could logically buy the unit for. Let it leak though that changing one byte in it's firmware before upload not only makes it clean up the packet stream but also throw away a "trash" packet that just happens to contain the broadcast flag.
If you havn't noticed it almost all of the DVD players now have some quick hack to go region and macrovision free... You think that is just coincidence?
Slashdot Mirror
keyword there being "LCD"... You can do all the color correction you want but your images will look like crud in any decent form of printing if you don't use a CRT. Sorry but CRT contrast ratios are still an order of magnitude below, even the great LCDs from Mac.
Ever wonder why the pro digital guys still have those ungodly huge 35" Sony Trinitron monitors? It's cause they know that is what it takes to actually see what is going to get printed.
If you can't see those issues coming from an LCD then you are doing printing where ICC is mostly a null issue anyways.
in other words a project like say... Asterisk?
We already have 5+ HUGE (100k+ DIDs) companies running it and raving about it... what more do you need?
Ahh... but majority does not rule in TV land, unless you are talking about majority of money.
For example... Firefly was pulling in the same viewership or more as other shows that were not cancelled at the time. The reason it got axed... because it had much higher production costs then the reality TV shows that lasted.
Remember... $50k/week on fear factor is nothing compared to paying actors and writers in NBCs mind. Fox has caught on to this fact even more and has taken drops in ratings in order to save money in production costs and hence make more money.
So for this reason... good shows with good (sometimes even extraordinary ratings) get let go and we are left with reality TV drivel
Firefly was also placed in nasty timeslots to compete for viewership in that genre...
He kindof sounds like he is willing to do almost anything necessary to start treatment... somehow I believe this means we would be willing to go see anyone qualified that could get him started on a treatment plan sooner.
Where did he say he wanted to use someone like an internet pharmacy?
It's only a felony if you arn't a real doctor. All he is asking for is a geek doctor out there that can fast track his treatment.
Tiny little boxes... connect via wireless to another AP and provide a single ethernet port out.
Senao (Engenius Tech) makes 2 nice little boxes for doing this that have 200mw transmit and the best receive thresholds on the market. This puppies have NICE radios.
You are looking for either the NL-2611 CB3 (802.11b) of the NL-3054 CB3 (802.11b/g and is also bi-mode [can operate as AP and client at same time])
Just through a network cable in place... connect this... adn ditch that USB crud.
Heh... my father and I pulled a similar trick. We found one that seemed to be particularly well balanced at the store and took it to his machine shop. This was one of the spoked ones not these new smooth plastic wheeled ones.
:}
Anyways... So you take an air hose from the compressor and aim it so that it pushes on the spokes. About 45 seconds of this and you are quite sure you no longer wish to be holding the gyro. We set it on the floor and watched in amazement as it went 13+ minutes without even wiggling... about a minute later it finally fell over totally.
We tried getting a tachometer reading on it but could never get anything reflective enough to stick. If only we would have thought of shiny paint.
Anyone with an anus that looks like that needs to see the doctor ASAP!
How about your statement of:
You say I am ridiculous for calling it hypocritical. If you are a scientist... and you claim to follow the scientific method then your duty is to follow the research where it leads you. To ignore a line of research because it does not fit the hypothesis you think is correct is hypocrisy.
I never said that you did... I was saying that this is what 90+% of macro-evolution scientists do. I am considered "stupid" because I don't believe all their theories. Theories are also just beliefs until they can be proven yet they treat them as if they should be blatantly obvious to any "smart" person and hence since you don't believe in them you are stupid.. dumb... ignorant...uniformed...etc.
What useful knowledge was gained by postulating that the world was in fact round and not flat? You make postulations... you test them... if they go nowhere then you back off but until you have at least made the attempt and failed with a proven conclusion to the opposite do not dismiss a hypothesis as "impossible" or "uninformed".
How many years ago was it that physicists laughed at for asking if gravity operated faster than the speed of light. Now we know an answer because finally someone didn't just laugh... they made several expirements to test just that.
Well sorry that I happen to be working from memory on research that I saw ignored over 10+ years ago. Doesn't it kindof make you wonder why no one is going "HMM this is odd..." still to this day? Do this date I have seen no one refute the evidence in any of the scientific journals I read (which is not EVERY one so yes I could have missed it)
I don't have time to reread the journal at this moment but if you think logically for just a second if everyone is descended from a single male or female X years ago arn't they also descended from a single couple X years ago? Unless there were multiple wives or husbands in the mix that is the only logical conclusion. Hence my statement of from a single couple.
Plus the difference in the years for the female side is apparent from the Biblical record because Noah brought his son's and their wives on to the ark. The wives would have been descended from larger set while the sons were all descended from Noah and his wife only.
And now you call me a liar from a single sentence statement made flippantly to show a minor point. You could have asked how in depth my knowledge was first.
I will assume that you meant "god" instead of gos. God requires only 2 things:
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'."
I am imperfect... a sinful being... I get things wrong... don't knock God because of me.
My simple reply is only this... I do not call scientists "uniformed radicallists" or any other such term just because I don't believe all of their theories. It would be WONDERFUL if 90% of the scientific community working in this area would at least act civil and return that favor.
Dismissing me as someone with lesser intellect because I believe in God and ignoring the hints in other scientific research that maybe some parts of this "god" thing are correct is idiocy at best and damnable at worst.
Everyone in the world seems to descend from a single male and female couple approximately 4500-5000 years ago. Why is it that there are only 2 researchs groups trying to figure out why. It sure seems that if we see results like this and have a historical (not to mention religion) text like the Bible giving a reason that someone should check it out in more detail.
When scientists ignore lines of research because they might "help the other side" they are hypocritical. "We are scientists follow the scientific method but we won't pay attention to this because we don't like it"
"The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness"
If you profess to follow the scientific method then you should not debunk other theories just because they do not "fit" with your own. If you have proof to the contrary then state it and you have successfully debunked the opposing theory. However until you have done this don't term the user of that theory as an "unknowledgable radicallist".
Yes... but when first found they ASSUME it is of religious significance unless they already know for a fact that it is not.
Modern scientists are brought in with the assumption that they believe in macro-evolution. This very assumption skews their work from day one and hence creates a bias. In science an unfounded bias (even when their are theories backing it up) is still not the correct usage of the scientific method.
I saved this one for last... we can't prove this... we won't be able to prove God exists until he comes.
However... How come all people in the known world seem to diverge from a single female and male pairing ~4500 years ago. Now the story of the flood seems to totally explain this were on the other hand I have yet to see science explain how only 2 homo-sapiens survived some climactic event that destroyed every other living homo-sapien. Several other species have had these same studies done and also seem to trace back to a small set (oddly enough coinciding with clean vs unclean animal pairings for the ark) ~4500 years ago.
To have evidence of this nature and yet call those that believe in the Bible, and hence the story of Noah's Ark, "uninformed radicallists" is wrong... just plain wrong.
There are divergent views... neither can prove the other wrong until God comes (I say until because I believe in him... others would say 'if a god comes').
Bravo! I agree 100%
I am actually glad you can't "prove" that God exists nor that everything started from a sterile big bang... it gets people thinking instead of just taking the easy route.
Interesting that you bring up Ockam's razor. Which is the simpler theory? That billions of highly unlikely events with a beginning event that came from "nothing" produced the world or that a eternal omnipotent God created it all.
Personally I find the second one as the "simpler" theory and it fits all the facts that I have run into so far where as evolution and "the big bang" are not only more complicated but have several statistical and factual problems. Granted science states they just need to "figure these out" and that there is a "logical" explanation.
I find it comforting that we can't prove either God or macro-evolution since it makes people think!
Hence the assertion that I have made on here before (which no I don't expect you to have read :} )
Religion is based on "faith" and science is based on "controlled suspension of disbelief". Neither side can ever prove the other wrong... neither can ever prove their side right... Scientists and creationists both know this yet they always treat the other side as if they are "wrong".
How can anything ever be wrong if it can never be proven either way?
In fact the only way we will get proof is (I say when because I believe in Him... you might say if) when God comes back.
And you added any enlightenment on either side by making this post?
Please read my replies as I would like to see if you can come up with an intelligent argument as well.
See my reply to the earlier post on tidal-locking...
But also for the platypus the main problem isn't it's current design but the fact that there seem to be no divergent species leading up to it.
Every animal in this world has some form of divergence. Horses you have mules... tigers, lions and even household cats have relations. However can you find a single animal within any close degree to a platypus? Even humans as "special" as we are do not diverge much from apes and chimpanzees. Show me where ANYONE has found a fossil record or living animal that in any way is a precurser to a platypus or even a divergent animal living today.
Bats are another on of these dillemmas. Although there are many kinds of bats we have yet to find any record of link to any previous form. Was a bat evolved from mice or squirrels? What advantage did wings provide it before they actually became large enough to fly? If just "extended gliding" is the answer then we havn't flying squirrels evolved further in the last 1000+ years that we have known of their existence?
Anyways... I am ranting... the main point is that there is a HUGE amount that science doesn't know and to dismiss the fact that an omnipotent God could have created it just because they can make theories to say how it could have been done otherwise is hypocritical. To say you are searching for the truth and dismiss one avenue of research because you arn't comfortable with the possible existence of a "god" figure is stupid at best and damnable at worst.
Yes... but my post was trying to show historical views and how science is ALWAYS going to be questioned by some form of a "god" figure.
Scientists that throw out the idea of any "god" figure performing an intelligent design on our planet just because they can make theories that fit the extremely limited view of time we have makes the scientists even MORE at fault than the religous people that ignore all of sciences facts.
It is nothing but hypocrisy to claim you are doing everything scientifically and provide your theories as facts and automatically dismiss the theories of any other argument.
If the omnipotent God that I believe in as a Christian decided to make the world in 7 days I don't see ANY evidence in any scientific journal that says or even implies it is impossible. Yet daily scientists rebuke religious types as "uninformed radicalists".
Makes me think of a talk one professor of mine had in an archaeological discussion. Have you ever heard of an ancient civilization being dug up and the researchers finding a children's doll? Now we all know that kids must have played over the ages. Yet because scientists must place a meaning on everything and often preconceive that meaning we end up with hundreds of thousands of "statues" to this or that God when in reality a bunch of them were the prehistoric version of a cabbage-patch-kid.
Well put! I would mod you up but I lost the right by replying to another comment.
:} Science has a lot correct... but they have forgotten that they are working with "theories" and not "100% facts" there is always another possible explanation and hence always another view.
I still think God has a great sense of humor. I mean... how else can you explain a platypus?
"I am so gonna get these scientists... I am going to make a creature that breaks all their nice theories... and I am going to put it somewhere that will take them a while to find it"
or my other favorite:
"Ahh... moon... and earth... it's beautiful. You know... if I start this moon spinning like this... and the earth movement like this... they will never get to see the other side! Lets see them explain how that just 'happened to occure'"
Ahh... so you are as open minded as they are then?
:}
Sorry... couldn't resist.
You have obviously never had a root canal and crown put on.
*cringes*
Easy answer... ENUM requires that you trust a central body in control of the use of your records. Havn't we all learned from DNS and Verisign?
Ummm dude... it's black and white.
/.
:P
If you are going to comment at least look at it first... oh wait.. this is
News for nerds... stuff people talk about without reading.
Berrien County, Michigan... I am 20+ miles to the nearest station with HDTV (WSJV).
I did just purchase a 7db amp but that was just so I could pull in Chicago HDTV stations more reliably.
I do also live on a relatively high point (20ft+ higher than most local topography) but... nothing special other than that.
Most of my channels I pull from South Bend, IN... but I also grab a couple from Chicago and Kalamazoo areas.
Ok... read the article. Time Warner cable sux... he has nothing to say bad about the hardware other than the crippling done by TW. He also is displeased with the channels that TW provides.
Hate to say it... but this is one place where over-the-air has kicked butt. You may not be able to get as many channels but even in podunkville where I live I can get 11 HDTV sources and they all look beautiful. My pcHDTV card renders them flawlessly on my monitor (which is set up for HDTV resolution).
Over-the-air is getting fairly standard and stable now. HD dish channels are actually starting to work out nicely now as well... but cable is gonna die if they keep moving at the current snail crawl they have going for their HD/SD rollouts.
And for those wondering about HDTV and their future.... don't go to someones house with HDTV unless you want to buy it yourself. I about killed 2 peoples credit ratings by letting them watch the Olympic ceremonies at my place.
(Current Setup 3.2Ghz/512Mb/320Gb AMD box running MythTV with a pcHDTV card displaying on a 21" CRT)
Heh... easy to get around. The MPEG stream that comes over the air has a LOT (almost 50%) repetitive data to keep the data clean even in not-so-great reception. You sell these devices as "stream cleaners" that clean up the repetitive data before it reaches your receiver hence making it easier on the receiver CPU.
Now this is just a small thing... that people could logically buy the unit for. Let it leak though that changing one byte in it's firmware before upload not only makes it clean up the packet stream but also throw away a "trash" packet that just happens to contain the broadcast flag.
If you havn't noticed it almost all of the DVD players now have some quick hack to go region and macrovision free... You think that is just coincidence?