Are VPNs getting useless against geo-restricted services?

On 26/11/2019 21.13, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article ,
default wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 09:06:11 -0500, Wolffan
wrote:

On 25 Nov 2019, Cameo wrote
(in article ):

....

What I find amusing in this thread is that usually, on any online forum,
when somebody is trying to do something illegal (as is clearly the case
here), everybody gets all hyper and sanctimonious about it, telling them
not to even think about posting online about such things. Why has that not
happened here?

Why the double standard???

Why should we accept what *they* decide us to use of the global economy
and not other things?


--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 27/11/2019 13.37, Arlen Holder wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:24:37 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote:

Just answer the question (on a technical basis) or move on.

Hi Kenny McCormack,
I'm not sure if you realize that Chris is a well-known troll.


Henry, ignore his definition of trolls. He puts there people that simply
contradict him, like me.

On the other hand, I have not noticed the forum police in this thread?
Or is your point that why they have not said anything here? I don't
know. Too soon?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article ,
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 27/11/2019 13.37, Arlen Holder wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:24:37 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote:

Just answer the question (on a technical basis) or move on.

Hi Kenny McCormack,
I'm not sure if you realize that Chris is a well-known troll.


Henry, ignore his definition of trolls. He puts there people that simply
contradict him, like me.

You're saying that you do the same? So, you really shouldn't be
complaining about him doing it...

On the other hand, I have not noticed the forum police in this thread?
Or is your point that why they have not said anything here? I don't
know. Too soon?

See my other post for the explanation. I'm actually arguing *against*
forum policing.

The fact that it hasn't happened in this thread is a Good Thing, but it
illustrates the double standard to which I alluded earlier.

--
1/20/17: A great day for all those people who are sick of being told
they don't know how to spell "you're" (or "there").

On 27/11/2019 14.32, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article ,
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 27/11/2019 13.37, Arlen Holder wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:24:37 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote:

Just answer the question (on a technical basis) or move on.

Hi Kenny McCormack,
I'm not sure if you realize that Chris is a well-known troll.


Henry, ignore his definition of trolls. He puts there people that simply
contradict him, like me.

You're saying that you do the same? So, you really shouldn't be
complaining about him doing it...

Where did I say so?

I said that I'm on his list of trolls, not that I put people that
contradict me in a list.


On the other hand, I have not noticed the forum police in this thread?
Or is your point that why they have not said anything here? I don't
know. Too soon?

See my other post for the explanation. I'm actually arguing *against*
forum policing.

The fact that it hasn't happened in this thread is a Good Thing, but it
illustrates the double standard to which I alluded earlier.


Or maybe because it is to soon. :-p


--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 14:06:59 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

Henry, ignore his definition of trolls. He puts there people that simply
contradict him, like me.

On the other hand, I have not noticed the forum police in this thread?
Or is your point that why they have not said anything here? I don't
know. Too soon?

Hi Carlos,

I noticed you didn't provide even a _single_ reference for your imaginary
belief system, Carlos. Shall we?

Let's see if you can pass a simple adult test of imaginary beliefs, Carlos:

Name just one, Carlos.
o Name just one

*Let's test to see if you can comprehend basic adult facts, shall we?*

As with a small child, you, Carlos, appear to consistently ignore basic
facts, where, for example, in the PDF thread you (as I recall) contradicted
my initial assumption on "optimization" versus "shrinking", where I did two
things adults do, which you completely ignored, Carlos:
o I instantly comprehended that fact, and, then...
o I instantly asked others to clarify the distinction

Notice I APPRECIATED that people clarified the disctinction I clearly
admitted I was ignorant of, Carlos:
o Desktop freeware to SHRINK (aka optimize) PDFs
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/AFRQTB_UX9E

And yet, you, Carlos, form a completely imaginary belief system to the
contrary, sans even a shred of a _single_ fact backing up your child-like
imaginary belief system.

This is a fact, Carlos, which your child-like brain chooses to ignore.
o And yet, the fact you ignore facts doesn't change they're still facts!

Here's another fact, Carlos, where I _appreciate when someone corrects me:
o wrong, by badgolferman
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/BjiM9DsVXj8/iqurJBJnBwAJ

Having proved my point of view, Carlos, which is that I'm an adult, whose
belief system is not only based on facts, but which is bolstered by facts,
the facts clearly show you provided exactly _zero_ references backing up
_your_ stated point of view, Carlos.

Carlos: Are you a man, or a man child?
o Prove you're a man, Carlos, who owns an _adult_ belief system, Carlos.

Name a _single_ post of mine where you claim I did what you said I did.
o Name just one.

--
The problem with the child-like Usenet posters like Carlos, is that they
can _never_ back up their wholly imaginary belief systems, with fact.
Just watch.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 14:53:44 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

I said that I'm on his list of trolls, not that I put people that
contradict me in a list.

Carlos,

People with wholly imaginary belief systems fail the "name just one" rule.

Did you add _adult_ value to this thread?
o If you did add _adult_ value to this thread, just name it.

That is, point to the one post in this thread, Carlos, where you added
purposefully helpful on-topic _adult_ value.
o Name just one

Since I am an adult, Carlos, unlike you, I follow that rule myself.
o Name just one

Here is a post to this thread adding on-topic value, Carlos, from me:
o Message-ID:

Carlos, where is _your_ post, to this thread, adding on-topic adult value?
o Name just one

--
Notice that the worthless child-like trolls can _never_ pass the simplest
test of adult belief systems, which is that they can never even name just
one fact that their belief system is based upon. Not even one.

Just watch.

On 27/11/2019 15.03, Arlen Holder wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 14:53:44 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

I said that I'm on his list of trolls, not that I put people that
contradict me in a list.

Carlos,

People with wholly imaginary belief systems fail the "name just one" rule.

Did you add _adult_ value to this thread?
o If you did add _adult_ value to this thread, just name it.

That is, point to the one post in this thread, Carlos, where you added
purposefully helpful on-topic _adult_ value.
o Name just one

Since I am an adult, Carlos, unlike you, I follow that rule myself.
o Name just one

Here is a post to this thread adding on-topic value, Carlos, from me:
o Message-ID:

Carlos, where is _your_ post, to this thread, adding on-topic adult value?
o Name just one


You see? It proves what I said about him.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 27/11/2019 14.55, Arlen Holder wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 14:06:59 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

Henry, ignore his definition of trolls. He puts there people that simply
contradict him, like me.

On the other hand, I have not noticed the forum police in this thread?
Or is your point that why they have not said anything here? I don't
know. Too soon?

Hi Carlos,

I noticed you didn't provide even a _single_ reference for your imaginary
belief system, Carlos. Shall we?

Stupid post ignored.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article ,
Carlos E.R. wrote:
....
Henry, ignore his definition of trolls. He puts there people that simply
contradict him, like me.

You're saying that you do the same? So, you really shouldn't be
complaining about him doing it...

Where did I say so?

I said that I'm on his list of trolls, not that I put people that
contradict me in a list.

I was joking. But if you read what you wrote carefully, you will see that
it can be (mis-) interpreted to mean that you do the same as he does.

On the other hand, I have not noticed the forum police in this thread?
Or is your point that why they have not said anything here? I don't
know. Too soon?

See my other post for the explanation. I'm actually arguing *against*
forum policing.

The fact that it hasn't happened in this thread is a Good Thing, but it
illustrates the double standard to which I alluded earlier.


Or maybe because it is to soon. :-p

You never know...

But I don't think it will. And that's my poimt.

--
Just remember:

Pence is all the evil, with none of the crazy.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:56:39 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

Stupid post ignored.

Notice Carlos can only play fifth-grade cowardly bully games.
o Adults will notice Carlos fails _every_ adult test posed of him.

These facts are clear to _adults_ on this ng:
a. Carlos posted _zero_ on-topic technical value to this thread
b. Carlos calls people trolls without having a _single_ reference cite

The fact Carlos is a worthless troll is proven by these facts:
a. Carlos' belief system is comprised of exactly _zero_ facts
b. Carlos clearly added _zero_ on-topic technical value to this thread.

There is a reason Carlos is listed as a worthless troll to this ng.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:56:11 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

You see? It proves what I said about him.

Carlos,

Notice Carlos can only play fifth-grade cowardly bully games.
o Adults will notice Carlos fails _every_ adult test posed of him.

To spare actual adults the indignity of me having to drop down to your
fifth-grade level to prove you're a cowardly troll, Carlos, this is my last
post to you in this thread because you proved that your entire belief
system is composed of exactly zero facts.

You can't name a _single_ fact that your child-like belief system is
comprised, and, worse, you can't name a _single_ post to this thread which
added even an iota of on-topic technical _adult_ value.

There's a reason you're on the list of worthless trolls, Carlos.
o You prove it every time you post.

On 2019-11-27, Arlen Holder wrote:
People with wholly imaginary belief systems fail the "name just one" rule.

People who over use bullet points and constantly change their identities
fail the "not a worthless troll" rule.

Yet another another sock puppet killfiled.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 11/26/2019 9:13 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article ,
default wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 09:06:11 -0500, Wolffan
wrote:

On 25 Nov 2019, Cameo wrote
(in article ):

I just tried a free subscription to Hulu and it wants me to enable the
location service in the Chrome browser. Apparently Hulu got smart and
does not rely on the US IP provided by the VPN. Chrome location would
probably provide my true location in EU. Is there a way to defeat that, too?

Don’tuse Chrome. Use Brave. Or Vivaldi. Or Firefox. Or... there are a _lot_
of alternatives. Brave is faster than Chrome talking to the same sites via
the same network and on the same hardware, and _doesn’t_ blab your
location.

I've often thought with a pint of Abby Ale, and some Vivaldi on the
stereo, cares seem to melt away.

That's just two of the Holy Trinity. (wine, women and song)

Hulu? Who needs it? Curl up with a good book.

If you had said (as I was expecting you were going to) "Curl up with a good
woman", then you would, indeed, have all 3.

What I find amusing in this thread is that usually, on any online forum,
when somebody is trying to do something illegal (as is clearly the case
here),

Technically it's illegal and I wish there was a legal way to receive US
broadcast channels in Europe. I would not mind paying for it. In fact I
am paying Hulu a pretty hefty price, even "illegally." Frankly I don't
see what's the harm in what I am doing. If anything I am contributing to
the revenue of Hulu (which is paying some of that to the content
providers.) If I stay "legal", that would be a lost opportunity cost to
them, wouldn't it? So I think with this stupid geo-restriction the
broadcasters only shoot themselves in the foot as it hurts them
financially. So they should be thankful for my helping their bottom
line, and I'll be thankful to keep me up-to-date on US politics better
than what I could gain from the local European TV broadcasts. This is
especially important now with the US election season in full swing.

Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article , Chris wrote:
Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article ,
default wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 09:06:11 -0500, Wolffan
wrote:

On 25 Nov 2019, Cameo wrote
(in article ):

I just tried a free subscription to Hulu and it wants me to enable the
location service in the Chrome browser. Apparently Hulu got smart and
does not rely on the US IP provided by the VPN. Chrome location would
probably provide my true location in EU. Is there a way to defeat that, too?

Don’tuse Chrome. Use Brave. Or Vivaldi. Or Firefox. Or... there are a _lot_
of alternatives. Brave is faster than Chrome talking to the same sites via
the same network and on the same hardware, and _doesn’t_ blab your
location.

I've often thought with a pint of Abby Ale, and some Vivaldi on the
stereo, cares seem to melt away.

That's just two of the Holy Trinity. (wine, women and song)

Hulu? Who needs it? Curl up with a good book.

If you had said (as I was expecting you were going to) "Curl up with a good
woman", then you would, indeed, have all 3.

What I find amusing in this thread is that usually, on any online forum,
when somebody is trying to do something illegal (as is clearly the case
here), everybody gets all hyper and sanctimonious about it, telling them
not to even think about posting online about such things. Why has that not
happened here?

Why the double standard???

Copyright infringement on the Internet is considered as a "minor" issue by
most. For example, the vast majority of the global Game of Thrones audience
was bootlegged copies.

However, in this instance is using a VPN strictly illegal? I'm not so sure.
There are regulatory reasons why channels don't choose to be streamed
outside their country, but for a larger audience of course they would.
Towns and cities near borders can view both countries' TV so there's a
precedent.


In case it wasn't clear, my point was that I don't think it is the business
of online forum commentators to police other people's morality.

Ah, yeah. Fair point.

Just answer the question (on a technical basis) or move on.

(Yes, I realize this point is subtle. Don't bother flaming me until you
actually understand what is being said.)

Was i flaming you?

Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 27/11/2019 15.03, Arlen Holder wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 14:53:44 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

I said that I'm on his list of trolls, not that I put people that
contradict me in a list.

Carlos,

People with wholly imaginary belief systems fail the "name just one" rule.

Did you add _adult_ value to this thread?
o If you did add _adult_ value to this thread, just name it.

That is, point to the one post in this thread, Carlos, where you added
purposefully helpful on-topic _adult_ value.
o Name just one

Since I am an adult, Carlos, unlike you, I follow that rule myself.
o Name just one

Here is a post to this thread adding on-topic value, Carlos, from me:
o Message-ID:

Carlos, where is _your_ post, to this thread, adding on-topic adult value?
o Name just one


You see? It proves what I said about him.

Just ignore him. He's going through one of his episodes. Not sure why he's
chosen to single me out this time. Oh well. He'll disappear for a couple of
days soon, hopefully.