Barry proposes in "ISP Head Floats Plan To Legalize Spam" that spam is impossible to block, and so instead should be legitimized and regulated, with a central, not-for-profit company charged with collecting fees from spammers and distributing those fees to ISPs that receive the spam. Of course, there have been many other plans for charging spammers to send spam, but those plans mostly have the fees going to the ISP that sends the e-mail, rather than the ISP that receives it and has to deliver it to the end-users. I'm the author of this piece, also the author of the InternetWeek piece linked to at the top of this thread. I must say, I've never had the same article/.ed TWICE before.
adamtegen - We do not plan to hook the computer lab at the homeless shelter to MMORPGs. So far, we've got standalone shrinkwrap PC games installed on those PCs. I'm not sure what the inventory is - I'm pretty sure there's a "Star Trek: Voyager" game on there.
The clients will NOT have an opportunity to sit at the gamnes all day, every day, and turn into mouse potatos. They're required to do a couple of hours of chores a day - cleaning up around the shelter, helping with cooking - they get training and counseling.
Moreover, since there is sometimes a shortage of PCs, there is a rule in place that game-players take back-seat to people doing immediately productive work. If someone is playing a game on a PC, and someone else comes into the lab needing ot type up a resume, then the person playing the game has to relinquish his computer.
infornogr, there's a fatal flaw in your argument - you're assuming that playing computer games is ALL that the clients are doing. Sure, if you sit at a computer and play games all day, your brain and body will turn to mush. But these clients are up early, they spend all day working on keeping the homeless shelter up and running (there isn't a staff of cooks and custodians - the clients do that work). They get intensive counseling, job training, GED programs and other education.
Thanks, obtuse, you seem to understand where I am coming from.
pardasaniman - I see no evidence that computer games are addictive.
Several of you seem to be assuming assuming that all we're doing is parking the homeless clients in front of a computer game and shoveling food into it. That's not true at all - from what I've seen in my limited perspective as a volunteer, St. Vincent De Paul Village is a boot camp for homelessness. The clients live in barracks-style housing, they are up early - a hell of a lot earlier than I am - they clean the housing themselves, work in the kitchen preparing food. There are STRICT rules at the shelter, and even light infractions on those rules can get the client thrown back out on the street. The clients get job training, education, and a rigorous course of counseling.
Sure, the computer games are a leisure activity, but it seems to me that even a homeless person living on charity ought to be able to have a little fun every day.
John Harrison asks whether I'm going to disregared any studies that don't agree with my premise? He wants to know why my question is so biased? My response: I've seen plenty of those studies already. I'm looking now for the other side of the issue.l
slustbader - Thanks!
cybermace5 writes:
But computer games are pretty close to zero benefit. They are a fun way to spend an afternoon with friends, or when you have absolutely nothing better to do (or don't want to try). I don't have a TV because it's even worse of a time waster.
Just summarize and paraphrase the article, including a few quotes. I do that all the time myself (my weblog is http://drive-thru.org). Specific phrasing can be copyrighted, but ideas and facts cannot.
Slashdot Mirror
Barry proposes in "ISP Head Floats Plan To Legalize Spam" that spam is impossible to block, and so instead should be legitimized and regulated, with a central, not-for-profit company charged with collecting fees from spammers and distributing those fees to ISPs that receive the spam. Of course, there have been many other plans for charging spammers to send spam, but those plans mostly have the fees going to the ISP that sends the e-mail, rather than the ISP that receives it and has to deliver it to the end-users. I'm the author of this piece, also the author of the InternetWeek piece linked to at the top of this thread. I must say, I've never had the same article /.ed TWICE before.
adamtegen - We do not plan to hook the computer lab at the homeless shelter to MMORPGs. So far, we've got standalone shrinkwrap PC games installed on those PCs. I'm not sure what the inventory is - I'm pretty sure there's a "Star Trek: Voyager" game on there.
The clients will NOT have an opportunity to sit at the gamnes all day, every day, and turn into mouse potatos. They're required to do a couple of hours of chores a day - cleaning up around the shelter, helping with cooking - they get training and counseling.
Moreover, since there is sometimes a shortage of PCs, there is a rule in place that game-players take back-seat to people doing immediately productive work. If someone is playing a game on a PC, and someone else comes into the lab needing ot type up a resume, then the person playing the game has to relinquish his computer.
infornogr, there's a fatal flaw in your argument - you're assuming that playing computer games is ALL that the clients are doing. Sure, if you sit at a computer and play games all day, your brain and body will turn to mush. But these clients are up early, they spend all day working on keeping the homeless shelter up and running (there isn't a staff of cooks and custodians - the clients do that work). They get intensive counseling, job training, GED programs and other education.
Thanks, obtuse, you seem to understand where I am coming from.
pardasaniman - I see no evidence that computer games are addictive.
Several of you seem to be assuming assuming that all we're doing is parking the homeless clients in front of a computer game and shoveling food into it. That's not true at all - from what I've seen in my limited perspective as a volunteer, St. Vincent De Paul Village is a boot camp for homelessness. The clients live in barracks-style housing, they are up early - a hell of a lot earlier than I am - they clean the housing themselves, work in the kitchen preparing food. There are STRICT rules at the shelter, and even light infractions on those rules can get the client thrown back out on the street. The clients get job training, education, and a rigorous course of counseling.
Sure, the computer games are a leisure activity, but it seems to me that even a homeless person living on charity ought to be able to have a little fun every day.
John Harrison asks whether I'm going to disregared any studies that don't agree with my premise? He wants to know why my question is so biased? My response: I've seen plenty of those studies already. I'm looking now for the other side of the issue.l
slustbader - Thanks!
cybermace5 writes:
But computer games are pretty close to zero benefit. They are a fun way to spend an afternoon with friends, or when you have absolutely nothing better to do (or don't want to try). I don't have a TV because it's even worse of a time waster.
So fun itself is zero benefit?
Just summarize and paraphrase the article, including a few quotes. I do that all the time myself (my weblog is http://drive-thru.org). Specific phrasing can be copyrighted, but ideas and facts cannot.