We have in^H^H^H^Hvestigated your complaint and, while we agree fer^H^H^H^H^H^Hocious filter controls can be frustrating, we don't understand what the prob^H^H^Hlem is here
Our censorship filters are highly-sophisticated, subtle and non-intrusive. They are sturd^H^H^H^Hy and not in any way prone to false positivies. They are most certainly not a hindrance to the users of Ho^H^Hme or their ability to create a Ho^H^Hme identit^H^H^Hy.
We would put it^H^H^H to you that you are creating a prob^H^H^Hlem where there really isn't one. We fail to find anyone else who re^H^H^H^H^Hally feels as strongly about this as you do.
We are high^H^H^H^Hly confident that Ho^H^Hme will grow into something that will ultimate^H^H^H^Hly enjoy a timeless ex^H^H^Histence, but we need people like you to stop being so tightfist^H^H^H^Hed and give us money. Be sure to look out for new features in^H^H^H^H^H the coming months: Ho^H^Hw would you like to purchase a hot sports car? A Filipino wife? Or gasm^H^H^H^H^H^Hasks with diamond-rimmed^H^H^H^H^H^H visors? These and more are fully mapped o^H^H^H^Hut for subsequent updates. Rest ass^H^H^Hured we are not performing mediocre tin^H^H^H^H^H^Hkering here. Ho^H^Hme will change the way everyone thinks about socializing.
Thanks for your understanding in this matter.
Sony Computer US^H^H^H^H^H^HA Saturd^H^H^H^Hay December 13 2008
I wonder if the inimitable Stephen Fry would like to test it. Then they'll know they are making progress.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Anything that can reduce Mr Fry to describing anything as "cunting" and give up in despair ("I can't put up with this sort of arse") must be far beyond terrible.:D
OK, that's fair enough. Maybe years of receiving spam and being online has lowered the 'English proficiency' bar for me.;) Or maybe I should have paid more attention. (The last time I checked though, 'impact' can be used as a verb and "may impact the organized activities of..." is appropriate usage (IANAEP [English Professor]); although I would probably have chosen to use 'affect' myself.)
As it happens, I'm far less on her side now than when I wrote my previous comment. The more I think about it, the more I keep coming back to her 'uppity' reaction, and it bugs me.
I still don't think what she did was with anything but good intent and in this case I wouldn't class it as spam. However, when all is said and done, she didn't appear to give the network admins much of a reason not to pursue action against her. Some politeness and respect for the processes involved would have gone a long way here, particularly after she had apparently had those processes pointed out to her.
No, she actually wrote very well, and articulated her points clearly and succinctly, I thought.
In short, it was well-written, on-topic (insofar as addressing the right people; even though there were 391 recipients, it was university business) and not what I would consider particularly spammy.
I think her mistake was getting uppity and "stat[ing] her intention to continue breaking the Network Acceptable User Policy." She should have tried to be more pleasant and forthcoming. Maybe then the arguments in her email would be being discussed, not overshadowed by this hoo-hah.
On the flip-side I do think MSU are being inordinately heavy-handed here.
FYI: First link fails (I mentioned this in my second post). Second link is fine.
I don't care about the image itself any more than any other Slashdotter, I don't consider it to be child pornography and I certainly don't get excited by it. But I am annoyed at the censorship, as poorly implemented as it is.
I'm examining UKFSN as a switch target as we speak (thanks to Pentagram's recommendation).
Sorry to reply to myself here, but having read some of the other comments it would appear that some ISPs are blocking the Virgin Killer page itself whereas others - as silly as it may seem - are blocking only the image page [PlusNet].
It seems they're blocking the image page itself not the article containing it. From the above links the secure.wikipedia.org link works, the others block access ("connection interrupted").
I didn't want to be in class. There were two things I wanted to do whilst I was at university, supposedly studying computer science. Number one is socialising, including drink, drugs and as much sex as possible. The second activity was that I wanted to be playing with my computers, sticking bits in or taking them out again...
...but you repeat yourself of course;)
Kidding aside, I'm not sure that's entirely relevant. Sure you may not want to be in class all the time and sure you may be more a practical type. But the point is you signed up for the course and when you are required to be in class presumably you would be learning something of interest even if it only gives context to the aspects you do like. Otherwise why not just pack it in. 'Programming [computers] to do stuff' involves theory as much as it does practical. (Obviously they don't always agree but that's another story.)
GP I think has raised a very valid issue. Anecdotal evidence it may be but throughout my schooling I noticed the same attitude in my peers. Sadly it was the prevailing attitude. I always wondered how they could call themselves studious (and I am most definitely including perceived studious types here too) if all they had done is the bare minimum to get a pass.
It would imply to me that being 'studious' involves some love for the learning itself. Maybe I'm wrong after all.
Why not, especially at university level, if you don't want to be there free up the place for someone who does.
It seems to me - and I'm not addressing you specifically here - that the problem is one of both the education system trying to achieve pass rates as well as an issue with society where not being able to do something is apparently something to be proud of.
"Oh I've always been rubbish at math"
And you're proud of that because...? It's one thing to acknowledge it with humility, it's quite another to be seemingly proud of it. Sadly that is ingrained in our society.
- Nah then. t'rock, mate! - Nay, a dun reck'n so. Tharr'd be paper, yer muppet. - Oh, dunt be daft, pass me t'sciss'rs will ye. - Duz eny a'thee kno were t'joke 's goin'? - Nay, dunt kno. - Nope; s'reyt innit. By gum, tis goin' up fer four, let's go t'pub fer ale?
And if these are true Yorkshiremen*:
(in unison) - Yer turn t'ger rahnd in! - Yer rahnd! - Reyt. Yer payin'!
* for those who don't know what I mean, the Yorkshireman's battlecry is something not entirely unlike "'ow much?!" (followed by a swift retreat);)
I think there was a technology shown on the Gadget Show a couple of seasons ago which allowed hands-free input by staring at a letter in a grid and the computer would select it (or something very similar to this, details are hazy for me; it may have been a proof of concept).
I know Hawking is often reluctant to upgrade his input mechanisms and it took a significant amount of time for him to move to his current method. However, given that soon he will probably lose movement in his cheek, something like this might be the only method left available to him if he is reduced to eye movement alone.
He's awesome in my opinion and I know he doesn't let his condition get him down, saying he's very lucky in other ways, but it's still sad to see him (or anyone) in that way.
Canadian pronunciation of 'about' is noticeably different but it's definitely not the same as the Scottish 'aboot'. As parent says Irish is different still.
Actually they were invented by a bloke with vampiric tendencies but who was also a big softie who couldn't bring himself to bite his bride's neck. He would suck on one of these instead.
Sorry, have I sunk to a low enough level for you yet...?:)
or they should have fit in with a family. but then again, they have to create a family first, and creating a family has SO much overhead and effort in these days
I believe that doesn't happen until they get to level 20 Humanoid or something.
Seriously though, you raise an excellent point and I think you're absolutely right.
It's odd that people analyzing gaming seem to focus so closely on it that they can't see the forest for the trees; they don't see it in the context of the 'grand scheme of things'. It actually doesn't matter all that much.
People do waste time in other, similarly 'wasteful' ways that could in some cases be seen as addiction in just the same way ("I can't miss American Idle* tonight" etc.) and nobody says anything about those. *[sic]:)
And since when was being a gamer a bad thing. One survey found that gamers generally aren't the social misfits they are perceived to be. I'd personally put 'addicted' gamers above 'addicted' television watchers, arguing that they are ultimately seeing more benefit (hand-eye coordination etc.) than those folk who just slob out in from of the TV. Even gamers who spend every waking hour playing.
I suppose one could argue that gaming addiction exists when it negatively affects aspects of their real world. Family, friends, bills not getting paid, etc. I'd say that's different. What's important to realize is that it is highly unfair to categorize those 90% of gamers in the title as addicted when they just enjoy spending the majority of their free time playing them.
People shouldn't be required to fit in with a perceived norm.
(I'm also sad to report that I read the title as "90% of Gaming Addiction Patents" and thought this was going to be about another stupid patent.)
I believe GP was going for Funny by referring to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder with the implication that only someone who has such irresistible compulsions would want to spend time looking the words up in a dictionary to check their veracity.
Slashdot Mirror
0. Profit
1. ????
I've never used SyncToy, but for my Windows box I regularly use SyncBack, of which there is a free version available.
Hell^H^H^H^Ho Mr Coward,
We have in^H^H^H^Hvestigated your complaint and, while we agree fer^H^H^H^H^H^Hocious filter controls can be frustrating, we don't understand what the prob^H^H^Hlem is here
Our censorship filters are highly-sophisticated, subtle and non-intrusive. They are sturd^H^H^H^Hy and not in any way prone to false positivies. They are most certainly not a hindrance to the users of Ho^H^Hme or their ability to create a Ho^H^Hme identit^H^H^Hy.
We would put it^H^H^H to you that you are creating a prob^H^H^Hlem where there really isn't one. We fail to find anyone else who re^H^H^H^H^Hally feels as strongly about this as you do.
We are high^H^H^H^Hly confident that Ho^H^Hme will grow into something that will ultimate^H^H^H^Hly enjoy a timeless ex^H^H^Histence, but we need people like you to stop being so tightfist^H^H^H^Hed and give us money. Be sure to look out for new features in^H^H^H^H^H the coming months: Ho^H^Hw would you like to purchase a hot sports car? A Filipino wife? Or gasm^H^H^H^H^H^Hasks with diamond-rimmed^H^H^H^H^H^H visors? These and more are fully mapped o^H^H^H^Hut for subsequent updates. Rest ass^H^H^Hured we are not performing mediocre tin^H^H^H^H^H^Hkering here. Ho^H^Hme will change the way everyone thinks about socializing.
Thanks for your understanding in this matter.
Sony Computer US^H^H^H^H^H^HA
Saturd^H^H^H^Hay December 13 2008
but the thing that killed it long ago for me is the lack of user programmable elements.
I hear that's going to be one of the major features of Playstation Ultimate Beta. You may wish to wait for that.
Wow!
Here you go fella: have another go
I wonder if the inimitable Stephen Fry would like to test it. Then they'll know they are making progress.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Anything that can reduce Mr Fry to describing anything as "cunting" and give up in despair ("I can't put up with this sort of arse") must be far beyond terrible. :D
Aw, bless.
OK, that's fair enough. Maybe years of receiving spam and being online has lowered the 'English proficiency' bar for me. ;) Or maybe I should have paid more attention. (The last time I checked though, 'impact' can be used as a verb and "may impact the organized activities of..." is appropriate usage (IANAEP [English Professor]); although I would probably have chosen to use 'affect' myself.)
As it happens, I'm far less on her side now than when I wrote my previous comment. The more I think about it, the more I keep coming back to her 'uppity' reaction, and it bugs me.
I still don't think what she did was with anything but good intent and in this case I wouldn't class it as spam. However, when all is said and done, she didn't appear to give the network admins much of a reason not to pursue action against her. Some politeness and respect for the processes involved would have gone a long way here, particularly after she had apparently had those processes pointed out to her.
Can't we all just get along.
No, she actually wrote very well, and articulated her points clearly and succinctly, I thought.
In short, it was well-written, on-topic (insofar as addressing the right people; even though there were 391 recipients, it was university business) and not what I would consider particularly spammy.
I think her mistake was getting uppity and "stat[ing] her intention to continue breaking the Network Acceptable User Policy." She should have tried to be more pleasant and forthcoming. Maybe then the arguments in her email would be being discussed, not overshadowed by this hoo-hah.
On the flip-side I do think MSU are being inordinately heavy-handed here.
FYI: First link fails (I mentioned this in my second post). Second link is fine.
I don't care about the image itself any more than any other Slashdotter, I don't consider it to be child pornography and I certainly don't get excited by it. But I am annoyed at the censorship, as poorly implemented as it is.
I'm examining UKFSN as a switch target as we speak (thanks to Pentagram's recommendation).
Sorry to reply to myself here, but having read some of the other comments it would appear that some ISPs are blocking the Virgin Killer page itself whereas others - as silly as it may seem - are blocking only the image page [PlusNet].
It seems they're blocking the image page itself not the article containing it. From the above links the secure.wikipedia.org link works, the others block access ("connection interrupted").
I didn't want to be in class. There were two things I wanted to do whilst I was at university, supposedly studying computer science. Number one is socialising, including drink, drugs and as much sex as possible. The second activity was that I wanted to be playing with my computers, sticking bits in or taking them out again...
...but you repeat yourself of course ;)
Kidding aside, I'm not sure that's entirely relevant. Sure you may not want to be in class all the time and sure you may be more a practical type. But the point is you signed up for the course and when you are required to be in class presumably you would be learning something of interest even if it only gives context to the aspects you do like. Otherwise why not just pack it in. 'Programming [computers] to do stuff' involves theory as much as it does practical. (Obviously they don't always agree but that's another story.)
GP I think has raised a very valid issue. Anecdotal evidence it may be but throughout my schooling I noticed the same attitude in my peers. Sadly it was the prevailing attitude. I always wondered how they could call themselves studious (and I am most definitely including perceived studious types here too) if all they had done is the bare minimum to get a pass.
It would imply to me that being 'studious' involves some love for the learning itself. Maybe I'm wrong after all.
Why not, especially at university level, if you don't want to be there free up the place for someone who does.
It seems to me - and I'm not addressing you specifically here - that the problem is one of both the education system trying to achieve pass rates as well as an issue with society where not being able to do something is apparently something to be proud of.
"Oh I've always been rubbish at math"
And you're proud of that because...? It's one thing to acknowledge it with humility, it's quite another to be seemingly proud of it. Sadly that is ingrained in our society.
Rough translation:
- Nah then. t'rock, mate!
- Nay, a dun reck'n so. Tharr'd be paper, yer muppet.
- Oh, dunt be daft, pass me t'sciss'rs will ye.
- Duz eny a'thee kno were t'joke 's goin'?
- Nay, dunt kno.
- Nope; s'reyt innit. By gum, tis goin' up fer four, let's go t'pub fer ale?
And if these are true Yorkshiremen*:
(in unison)
- Yer turn t'ger rahnd in!
- Yer rahnd!
- Reyt. Yer payin'!
* for those who don't know what I mean, the Yorkshireman's battlecry is something not entirely unlike "'ow much?!" (followed by a swift retreat) ;)
Surely she means the mice. Dolphins aren't all that, they just think they are.
I can only apologize profusely. I thought it was lame as I wrote it and I guess that proves it :)
Steve "the chair tosser" Ballmer
As that joke is showing its age these days I'm afraid I'm going to have to mentally redact the word 'chair'.
Much better.
I think there was a technology shown on the Gadget Show a couple of seasons ago which allowed hands-free input by staring at a letter in a grid and the computer would select it (or something very similar to this, details are hazy for me; it may have been a proof of concept).
I know Hawking is often reluctant to upgrade his input mechanisms and it took a significant amount of time for him to move to his current method. However, given that soon he will probably lose movement in his cheek, something like this might be the only method left available to him if he is reduced to eye movement alone.
He's awesome in my opinion and I know he doesn't let his condition get him down, saying he's very lucky in other ways, but it's still sad to see him (or anyone) in that way.
Canadian pronunciation of 'about' is noticeably different but it's definitely not the same as the Scottish 'aboot'. As parent says Irish is different still.
Hoots man, there's joose loose aboot this hoose.
And here's a man who throws his opinions into the ring. He's wearing a hat. He knows what he's talking aboot^H^Hut.
Just be glad he rejected the name Tommy Tinsel.
Actually they were invented by a bloke with vampiric tendencies but who was also a big softie who couldn't bring himself to bite his bride's neck. He would suck on one of these instead.
Sorry, have I sunk to a low enough level for you yet...? :)
or they should have fit in with a family. but then again, they have to create a family first, and creating a family has SO much overhead and effort in these days
I believe that doesn't happen until they get to level 20 Humanoid or something.
Seriously though, you raise an excellent point and I think you're absolutely right.
It's odd that people analyzing gaming seem to focus so closely on it that they can't see the forest for the trees; they don't see it in the context of the 'grand scheme of things'. It actually doesn't matter all that much.
People do waste time in other, similarly 'wasteful' ways that could in some cases be seen as addiction in just the same way ("I can't miss American Idle* tonight" etc.) and nobody says anything about those. * [sic] :)
And since when was being a gamer a bad thing. One survey found that gamers generally aren't the social misfits they are perceived to be. I'd personally put 'addicted' gamers above 'addicted' television watchers, arguing that they are ultimately seeing more benefit (hand-eye coordination etc.) than those folk who just slob out in from of the TV. Even gamers who spend every waking hour playing.
I suppose one could argue that gaming addiction exists when it negatively affects aspects of their real world. Family, friends, bills not getting paid, etc. I'd say that's different. What's important to realize is that it is highly unfair to categorize those 90% of gamers in the title as addicted when they just enjoy spending the majority of their free time playing them.
People shouldn't be required to fit in with a perceived norm.
(I'm also sad to report that I read the title as "90% of Gaming Addiction Patents" and thought this was going to be about another stupid patent.)
If /. wants to publish EVERY bad patent application, it's going to get crowded here pretty quick. There's a lot of chaff out there.
Slashdot needs to be careful with that, someone has probably patented separating chaff from the wheat. They need to check that out.
They are just coming up with ideas to explain things many light years away (i.e., not particularly relevant to business practices).
Are you not familiar with the term 'vaporware' ;)
I believe GP was going for Funny by referring to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder with the implication that only someone who has such irresistible compulsions would want to spend time looking the words up in a dictionary to check their veracity.
$ umount /dev/sco