Seriously though, a crippled Wii is what will be necessary in order to at least get insurance to pay for it. There's a long history of general purpose devices being disqualified, even if they do the job better than a specialized device. Meanwhile, the specialized (or crippled version of a general purpose) device can be sold for thousands of dollars.
Oh, and if the controllers are not compatible with other Bluetooth devices, I'd want a refund on those too. And their chargers. And the chat pad (doesn't work right with other devices). And any other peripherals.
If I wanted a refund, I'd want a refund for the console, the games, the DLC, and all the Blu-ray movies I bought for it too. I don't expect I'd get the Blu-ray refunds, but I certainly feel I should get refunds for the games that no longer allow me to play them unless I accept their update.
But I don't want a refund. I don't want a couple coupons. I don't want a cash settlement. I want:
my system restored to function,
feature-frozen to the update that didn't remove this feature,
compatibility of my existing library of games to the on-line service restored a. on that console to the level prior to this update or b. on a second console that
has all the capabilities of my previous console sans the Other OS, but including backwards compatibility and SACD support,
my trophies and other recorded progress in games ported from the original console, and
warranty,
while still retaining my original console,
ability to choose to opt out of forced updates delivered on-line or on any physical media including but not limited to CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays, USB storage media, and game disks, and
a public apology, acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and binding vow not to repeat such actions by Sony with added damages attached.
The last item may be negotiable. Basically, give me a second PS3 matching my existing PS3. If porting everything from old to new is not feasible, let me install Other OS on the new one and I'll update the original.
No, I'm not asking the same of Microsoft re:original XBOX, because Microsoft is not being an ass (though why they couldn't have fragmented Live, segregating original XBOX Live users from 360 users (like PC Live users are) by moving the latter to new servers with an update I don't know).
But while the examples scramble every word, the thesis is that not every word need be scrambled and that any scrambled word can be derived from context.
The second sentence in my (the GP) post contains no misspellings. I wrote "pair form" and I meant "pair form". If you misread it as "pair from" that's an error on your part, not a valid correction.
I don't discount the phenomenon, only that it is stated too simplistically as a general case in a way that is easily disproven. If it were that easy, even a machine should be able to correct anything so scrambled without any special logic to even understand what is being written (and just as rapidly as the human brain provided the right relational database).
I've submitted my observations to snopes.com on this topic, including a link to this subthread, as an update to their article on the topic.
The "paper" is cited as saying correct spelling is unimportant. However, it doesn't say that the letters in the middle are unimportant, only their order. They still contain the correct letters. (Otherwise, no one w3d h2e any p6m u11g t2s p4e and we'd have discovered a new efficient standard for compressing English text.)
It boils down to saying that having only the correct first and last letter makes solving a scrambled word easy. Apart from the three example anagram pairs I've cited, that is correct in English. But those three examples disprove it as a rule with no exceptions as it is generally taken.
And it makes light of the plight of dyslexics. Not that I have a horse in that race.
Or a Federation of Planets suddenly decreeing that, due to evidence of environmental damage to subspace, all Federation vessels are to travel no faster than warp factor 5 except in cases of extreme emergency until such time as they are retrofitted with variable geometry nacelles?
Actually, no. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable recall order. Make it like the forced recall and crushing of the leased-not-sold General Motors EV1 electric cars, which is still controversial today.
Since clearly, American Standard English and The Queen's English have a common ancestor, does anyone know when/why the spelling differences evolved?
While it would be handy to call it the Galapagos effect, it didn't evolve. It's rooted in the nationalism of one man: Noah Webster. His first attempt was too overreaching, even changing "tongue" (which many misspell today as "tounge" as if to rhyme with "lounge") to "tung", which didn't take.
Well, how about a shorter example: form/from. There's no altering the scrambling rules that can exclude that pair form ambiguity. And there's nothing wrong with the previous sentence either.
For example, it would be hard to come up with a scenario where protuberantial and perturbational can be used interchangeably in a sentence and still be correct. Same with undefinability and unidentifiably.
Sure you can: you just did it twice.
And you can have a lot more fun coming up with words that aren't in the English language, especially in sentences that attempt to teach you the correct spelling of words are rendered farcical when you scramble them. Much of science fiction would make little sense when you scramble words like joojooflop, swut, and turlingdrome, let alone unusual proper names.
It is reasoned that it is a subset of scrambling, i.e. the exchange of pairs of adjacent letters, that is readily discernable, and not the full-fledged scrambling of the word. In that it is fairly provable that the distribution of letters have enough rules regarding what adjacent letters and phonemes are common to be provable.
There exist pairs of words which are anagrams of each other while still having the same first and last letter. Thus you would not be able to distinguish them if the intervening letters were scrambled. Two examples are protuberantial/perturbational and, even more on point, undefinability/unidentifiably.
Marcus Cole: I spy with my little eye... something beginning with "B." Stephen Franklin: [annoyed] Boxes. Marcus: Fine! I spy with my little eye something beginning with "M." Franklin: More boxes. Marcus: Two in a row. Franklin: "And that's when I shot him, Your Honor." Marcus: I spy with my little eye something beginning with "E." Franklin: I-I give up. Marcus: Oh come on. Franklin: This better not be what I- Marcus and Franklin: [in unison] Even more boxes!
Perhaps he thinks an audience with the Mayor is considered "something of value". Or even just bragging rights that he had met the Mayor. It seems to work for prosecutors in software piracy cases; why not extortion?
Sounds like being trapped between Not Following Orders and Only Following Orders to me.
Borr: Commissioner, I have the sole operative remaining alive from the Bureau at the time of the experiments on Bucol Two. Servalan: Who is he? Borr: His name is Ardus, and he's an ex-officer of the Bureau. Servalan: Put him on the fastest scout ship available and send him here. No flight plan is to be filed. Borr: That's against Bureau standing orders, Commissioner. Servalan: Who do you think wrote those orders, Borr? I did. So do as I say, and do it *now*. Borr: At once, Commissioner Sleer.
[Ardus's scout ship docks with Servalan's ship. Ardus is interviewed and betrays his recognition of Commissioner Sleer's voice as Servalan's, then disavows it. Afterwards, Servalan contacts Borr again.]
Borr: Commissioner Sleer, is everything satisfactory? Servalan: When you dispatched Ardus here to me, did his pilot file a flight plan? Borr: No Commissioner. Everything was as you instructed. Servalan: They never arrived here Borr. Borr: But they must have done! Servalan: I suggest you make sure that your connection with their disappearance is never discovered. Without any records to back you up, it might be hard to explain. Borr: There's... no cause for concern, Commissioner. I was... very discrete. Servalan: I hope so. Now get me the photo print record on a scientist named Justin, a genetic engineer. Borr: Certainly.
[Ardus's scout ship leaves and is blown up by mutoid at Captain's nod] Servalan: I want you to work out a landing plan for this ship on Bucol Two as soon as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously though, a crippled Wii is what will be necessary in order to at least get insurance to pay for it. There's a long history of general purpose devices being disqualified, even if they do the job better than a specialized device. Meanwhile, the specialized (or crippled version of a general purpose) device can be sold for thousands of dollars.
Maybe he just got his words in the wrong order: a piece of Internet prehistory.
So... all passwords are illegal because they deny me service?
Well, all passwords except mine. Those only deny you service. Still illegal though.
Excuse me, but shouldn't that be Kingdom of Spam?
Nations shouldn't be treated as a person; they aren't corporations (yet).
Man, using their full names like that? It's as if their crimes were equivalent to presidential assassination or serial killing.
Oh, and if the controllers are not compatible with other Bluetooth devices, I'd want a refund on those too. And their chargers. And the chat pad (doesn't work right with other devices). And any other peripherals.
If I wanted a refund, I'd want a refund for the console, the games, the DLC, and all the Blu-ray movies I bought for it too. I don't expect I'd get the Blu-ray refunds, but I certainly feel I should get refunds for the games that no longer allow me to play them unless I accept their update.
But I don't want a refund. I don't want a couple coupons. I don't want a cash settlement. I want:
a. on that console to the level prior to this update or
b. on a second console that
The last item may be negotiable. Basically, give me a second PS3 matching my existing PS3. If porting everything from old to new is not feasible, let me install Other OS on the new one and I'll update the original.
No, I'm not asking the same of Microsoft re:original XBOX, because Microsoft is not being an ass (though why they couldn't have fragmented Live, segregating original XBOX Live users from 360 users (like PC Live users are) by moving the latter to new servers with an update I don't know).
And tubs of Degree Men Absolute Protection antiperspirant.
But while the examples scramble every word, the thesis is that not every word need be scrambled and that any scrambled word can be derived from context.
The second sentence in my (the GP) post contains no misspellings. I wrote "pair form" and I meant "pair form". If you misread it as "pair from" that's an error on your part, not a valid correction.
I don't discount the phenomenon, only that it is stated too simplistically as a general case in a way that is easily disproven. If it were that easy, even a machine should be able to correct anything so scrambled without any special logic to even understand what is being written (and just as rapidly as the human brain provided the right relational database).
I've submitted my observations to snopes.com on this topic, including a link to this subthread, as an update to their article on the topic.
The "paper" is cited as saying correct spelling is unimportant. However, it doesn't say that the letters in the middle are unimportant, only their order. They still contain the correct letters. (Otherwise, no one w3d h2e any p6m u11g t2s p4e and we'd have discovered a new efficient standard for compressing English text.)
It boils down to saying that having only the correct first and last letter makes solving a scrambled word easy. Apart from the three example anagram pairs I've cited, that is correct in English. But those three examples disprove it as a rule with no exceptions as it is generally taken.
And it makes light of the plight of dyslexics. Not that I have a horse in that race.
Or a Federation of Planets suddenly decreeing that, due to evidence of environmental damage to subspace, all Federation vessels are to travel no faster than warp factor 5 except in cases of extreme emergency until such time as they are retrofitted with variable geometry nacelles?
Actually, no. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable recall order. Make it like the forced recall and crushing of the leased-not-sold General Motors EV1 electric cars, which is still controversial today.
Since clearly, American Standard English and The Queen's English have a common ancestor, does anyone know when/why the spelling differences evolved?
While it would be handy to call it the Galapagos effect, it didn't evolve. It's rooted in the nationalism of one man: Noah Webster. His first attempt was too overreaching, even changing "tongue" (which many misspell today as "tounge" as if to rhyme with "lounge") to "tung", which didn't take.
I found your post quiet amusing.
If you're going to drop the -ly from the adverb, you need to add a hyphen: "quiet-amusing". And ne'er the 'twain shall meet.
Unfortunately I bought my PS3 in 2007 at a now non-existent Circuit City.
Not entirely.
No, that's domesticated turkeys.
Well, how about a shorter example: form/from. There's no altering the scrambling rules that can exclude that pair form ambiguity. And there's nothing wrong with the previous sentence either.
For example, it would be hard to come up with a scenario where protuberantial and perturbational can be used interchangeably in a sentence and still be correct. Same with undefinability and unidentifiably.
Sure you can: you just did it twice.
And you can have a lot more fun coming up with words that aren't in the English language, especially in sentences that attempt to teach you the correct spelling of words are rendered farcical when you scramble them. Much of science fiction would make little sense when you scramble words like joojooflop, swut, and turlingdrome, let alone unusual proper names.
It is reasoned that it is a subset of scrambling, i.e. the exchange of pairs of adjacent letters, that is readily discernable, and not the full-fledged scrambling of the word. In that it is fairly provable that the distribution of letters have enough rules regarding what adjacent letters and phonemes are common to be provable.
The beta version of the SDK is available for download from today
"From today"? Only today? I'm sure I won't be able to download it from yesterday, but what about tomorrow or three weeks from now?
(Something's missing.)
Yeah, that has been disproven.
There exist pairs of words which are anagrams of each other while still having the same first and last letter. Thus you would not be able to distinguish them if the intervening letters were scrambled. Two examples are protuberantial/perturbational and, even more on point, undefinability/unidentifiably.
ME TOO!
tl;dr
Marcus Cole: I spy with my little eye... something beginning with "B."
Stephen Franklin: [annoyed] Boxes.
Marcus: Fine! I spy with my little eye something beginning with "M."
Franklin: More boxes.
Marcus: Two in a row.
Franklin: "And that's when I shot him, Your Honor."
Marcus: I spy with my little eye something beginning with "E."
Franklin: I-I give up.
Marcus: Oh come on.
Franklin: This better not be what I-
Marcus and Franklin: [in unison] Even more boxes!
SCO: [as Kramer imitating Movie Phone Guy] Why don't you just give me the Unix copyright!
Borr: There's... no cause for concern, Commissioner. I was... very discrete.
Discreet.
Yes... unless you think he's saying he acted alone and unconnected to anyone else, which sorta fits if you stretch the definition....
Yeah, I don't buy it either. I just blindly trusted my transcript source. I should have checked.
There is no criminal law that says you have to do what your boss tells you to do, unless you're in the military.
And then only if your military is on the winning side of the conflict. Consider WWII.
Perhaps he thinks an audience with the Mayor is considered "something of value". Or even just bragging rights that he had met the Mayor. It seems to work for prosecutors in software piracy cases; why not extortion?
Sounds like being trapped between Not Following Orders and Only Following Orders to me.
Borr: Commissioner, I have the sole operative remaining alive from the Bureau at the time of the experiments on Bucol Two.
Servalan: Who is he?
Borr: His name is Ardus, and he's an ex-officer of the Bureau.
Servalan: Put him on the fastest scout ship available and send him here. No flight plan is to be filed.
Borr: That's against Bureau standing orders, Commissioner.
Servalan: Who do you think wrote those orders, Borr? I did. So do as I say, and do it *now*.
Borr: At once, Commissioner Sleer.
[Ardus's scout ship docks with Servalan's ship. Ardus is interviewed and betrays his recognition of Commissioner Sleer's voice as Servalan's, then disavows it. Afterwards, Servalan contacts Borr again.]
Borr: Commissioner Sleer, is everything satisfactory?
Servalan: When you dispatched Ardus here to me, did his pilot file a flight plan?
Borr: No Commissioner. Everything was as you instructed.
Servalan: They never arrived here Borr.
Borr: But they must have done!
Servalan: I suggest you make sure that your connection with their disappearance is never discovered. Without any records to back you up, it might be hard to explain.
Borr: There's... no cause for concern, Commissioner. I was... very discrete.
Servalan: I hope so. Now get me the photo print record on a scientist named Justin, a genetic engineer.
Borr: Certainly.
[Ardus's scout ship leaves and is blown up by mutoid at Captain's nod]
Servalan: I want you to work out a landing plan for this ship on Bucol Two as soon as possible.