Roku TV Owners Complain That Motion Smoothing Is Stuck 'On' After an Update (theverge.com) 95
Roku TV owners are complaining that motion smoothing is "suddenly enabled on their TVs with no way to turn it off," reports The Verge. From the report: Contributors on Reddit and in Roku's community forum reported seeing the change on TCL TVs running on Roku OS 13, as did a few staffers on The Verge. However, for others who have access to "Expert" picture settings, the same update is in place without a change, and the settings to control it are still available. For some people experiencing the problem, they said this is the first time their TV offered Roku's motion smoothing feature at all and that there's nowhere in any menu (either the standard settings or the picture settings available while watching TV) to turn it off. The update notes for Roku OS 13 mention a new "Roku Smart Picture" feature that will optimize based on the content being watched, so there may be a bug there. However, people in older threads have reported similar issues with some Roku devices before.
A Roku community moderator responded on the forum that the team is looking into the incident. Roku also offered its typical instructions for disabling the settings, which involves clicking the Star button on the remote during playback and heading to the Action Smoothing submenu under Advanced Picture Settings. [...] Naturally, a lot of people who work in film and television aren't a fan. Star Wars: The Last Jedi director Rian Johnson once went so far as to say it makes "movies look like liquid diarrhea."
A Roku community moderator responded on the forum that the team is looking into the incident. Roku also offered its typical instructions for disabling the settings, which involves clicking the Star button on the remote during playback and heading to the Action Smoothing submenu under Advanced Picture Settings. [...] Naturally, a lot of people who work in film and television aren't a fan. Star Wars: The Last Jedi director Rian Johnson once went so far as to say it makes "movies look like liquid diarrhea."
Roku Community (Score:2)
Is basically the internet personification of a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Re: (Score:2)
Old man time (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was a kid, a TV took a signal and turned it into an image and sound. A television could somehow perform this function for decades without a software update. There wasn't even an option for an Internet connection.
Re: (Score:3)
I was just yesterday thinking about the smooth image of analogue while trying out the various settings for encoding with x265 to minimise digital artefacts in the resulting video.
Good ol' analogue source and CRT monitors and their lack of interfering technologies.
Re: (Score:1)
Swings and roundabouts. Analogue video is usually smoother than digital (unless the analogue video itself comes from a digital source such as DVD) and doesn't generally have motion artifacts other than occasional tearing, but to achieve HD resolution with analogue never mind 4K would require bandwidth so high as to be unfeasible.
Re: (Score:3)
Analog is great for smoothness (at least between picture elements, it still has a frame rate!), but you pay for that with an inability to do much error correction.
I remember watching television from distant stations and having to make out an image that was less than half there because of static. Digital signals typically come through without error or fail entirely with no middle ground.
Re: (Score:1)
"Digital signals typically come through without error or fail entirely with no middle ground."
Depends on the type of signal. Here in the UK mpeg2 TV has a small window of garbled picture and glitchy sound before it dies entirely. In that circumstance i'll take the fuzz of analogue any day.
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of years after ATSC1.0 went live, some company actually came up with an improved encoder that encoded all the streams, then went back and used any remaining bits available for the frame to re-encode chunks of the main program stream's B or P frame to include more data than was strictly necessary & make them behave more like fragments of an I-frame. The idea was, if a frame got mangled, or a B/P frame corrupted it, subsequent B/P frames could repair it in a manner that looked kind of like "venet
Re: (Score:2)
but to achieve HD resolution with analogue never mind 4K would require bandwidth so high as to be unfeasible.
Yes, if you're talking about practical OTA TV transmission.
No, if you're talking about video distribution within a house or building. Literally every YPrPb component video cable trio was capable of shoveling 720p60 and 1080i60 HD video a few feet between a DVD player or cable/satellite box and TV just fine.
In fact, you could even shovel HD video (as Y/Pb/Pr + SPDIF audio) a few hundred feet through your house using bog-standard cat5 cable via passive video baluns. Back in 2009, I pulled cat5 cables between
Re:Old man time (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny you should say that. This Forbes article [forbes.com] talks about the 200 M113s we are sending to Ukraine. While older vehicles, they suit Ukraines style of warfare. However, something noted in the article is this:
Additionally, the M113 is old enough that much of its technology is analog. As the Russian military deploys newer and more advanced electronic warfare systems, the analog systems of the M113 remain unaffected.
So yup, analog for the win. Again.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I still use a steam-powered television.
Re: (Score:2)
A TV that use steam deck as it's UI would be quite great.
Re: (Score:2)
I had to get rid of mine. My water bill was getting outrageous!
Re: (Score:2)
TV's are now computers, Grandpa.
And I'm 60 and used to fix analog TV's.
Re: (Score:2)
The earliest TV I ever had, had vacuum tubes in it.
They've always been computers to some extent, just not general purpose ones tasked with monitoring everything you do and serving you ads.
And MY televisions aren't general purpose computers. Sure, they now have boot times and boot logos instead of warm up times, but all they do is process TV signals from various sources and put them on the screen. When the day comes I can't get one like that, because all of them are 'smart' TVs, I'll buy monitors and run t
Re: (Score:3)
Technically all CRT televisions had at least one vacuum tube - the cathode ray tube.
Re: (Score:1)
"TV's are now computers,"
If you know as much about TVs as you say you'll know analogue TVs had computers in them since the 70s. How do you think teletext worked? Also from the 80s and 90s plenty had on screen menus and here in the UK we had 14 bit digital stereo from NICAM.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, when I was a kid TV was analog and low resolution. You certainly were not going to get a 1080p analog signal in the 6Mhz bandwidth allotted,
Re: (Score:2)
That's great if you wanted to watch whatever was on. I don't have rose coloured glasses on, I'm happy with a smart TV with a built in streaming system that can show me high definition content I want to watch when I want to watch it. Remember TV guides? They used to be printed. ON FUCKING PAPER! I want to watch TV, not read and hope that I can find something on at a timeslot I want it in.
I'll take the hassles of updates and apps any day of the week over the hassle of VCRs and TV guides.
Re: (Score:2)
No TV of mine will ever connect to the internet.
My 2012 LG SmartTV only has one app that still (barely) works, I keep it offline.
Newer TV's have microphones etc, things I'd plug up or remove. A TV is a display device, I plug things into it and receive RF broadcast non-interactive non-IP signals with it.
Never connect your Smart TV to the internet (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then how in the world are you going to use streaming services?
Re:Never connect your Smart TV to the internet (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I use a 4th gen i7 computer with Kodi installed and connected to a NAS that I control.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can always just do without streaming services...
The TV tends to recieve TV signals.
Besides, instead of plugging in a TV that has apps that will only stream for a few years before they abandon the platform, plus microphones and cameras that spy on you, you can just plug in a firestick or any other sreaming devices.
Liquid diarrhea! (Score:5, Funny)
Of course the director of The Last Jedi thinks that "liquid diarrhea" is something other than redundant. Maybe he thinks his movies are the solid kind?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he finally got around to seeing his own movie for the first time.
Unpopular opinion (Score:3)
Motion smoothing is not objectively bad, it's a subjective choice, and some people (including myself) do prefer to have it on (when it is implemented properly, admittedly some devices don't). It irks me somewhat when these movie makers (e.g. Rian Johnson in the linked article) try to paint frame interpolation as objectively bad. Nobody ever complains about resolution (spatial) upscaling being applied to low resolution media, why is there such a hatred for temporal upscaling? I am of the firm opinion that at least some of the people that say they hate it are only saying that because they've been told to hate it by cretins like Rian Johnson.
Most of my time watching a screen of any kind (outside of work) is playing videogames on my PC. When I was able to upgrade my main display from 60Hz to 120Hz it was a whole new lease of life for all my games, the smoothness was a pleasure to behold. Having to watch any content (be it videogame cutscenes, movies, TV shows, sports) at 30fps or less is just painful to me (less so on CRTs), I want to watch moving pictures not a slideshow. A handy bit of software (cost is a one-off payment, not subscription) allows me to use frame-interpolation to achieve any framerate I like from pretty much any video source, and since the PC has a lot more compute power to throw at the task compared to a TV it looks so much better. Also, I find it is much easier to see what is happening in fast action scenes with fast cuts when upscaled to 120fps. You can pry my frame interpolation from my cold dead hands.
Re: Unpopular opinion (Score:4, Funny)
If your TV performs better interpolation than your brain, your brain is broken.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't see mountains jump centimeters at a time in panoramic shots @30Hz without interpolation, your eyes are broken...
Seriously, there is (almost) no need for motion smoothing for sitcoms or murder anywhere type of shows. But scenes with wide panoramic shots, those hurt my eyes without interpolation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it were true, your eyes aren't clock-synced to the display.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there are dozens of examples all over youtube of people clearly differentiating 120fps from 60fps in blind tests.
In BLIND tests? Impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny or idiot?
Re: (Score:2)
That's absolutely incorrect. Just because 24fps can simulate smooth motion does not mean that is the limit at what your eyes can see and brain can process. You don't process visual information in frames like a computer, your eyes don't have a "framerate"
.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your eyes only work at 24 fps. Your whole stance is based on a biologically impossibility.
Err no, not even remotely. That myth is well and truly debunked. Our "frame rate" varies greatly on context. We're fucking terrible at distinguishing changes in brightness, but great at watching motion. It's on of the reasons LED bulbs appear to flicker when you vibrate them enough to visibly move. We can easily distinguish motion of around 100fps give or take 20fps. Cinema does a lot of tricks to make motion appear smoother at it's pathetic 24fps, which includes using longer shutter angles to generate moti
Re: (Score:2)
Interlacing solves everything. 25 frames per second / 50 feilds per socond is a smooth as anything can be.
I also have no issues with playing games at 20fps or lower. I cant tell the difference till around 15fps, so you might suggest my eyes are broken but I have just fragged you multiple times as you think that at 20fps.
So, perhaps your eyes are the broken ones...
Brain? (Score:2)
More like no brain in my head.
Re: (Score:2)
If your TV performs better interpolation than your brain, your brain is broken.
Some people have "pattern recognition" that is far beyond normal. Some people can see the individual frames up until 130 frames per second (or higher if they are not me).
Being able to perceive the digitization of an analog world merely means that the sample rate is too low or your brain is "too fast" for the sampling rate chosen. FM Radio has a16khz range for sound and is good for audio and most people don't notice that they are missing a good 4khz of the full dynamic range that an ear can hear. Others find
Re: (Score:3)
It irks me somewhat when these movie makers (e.g. Rian Johnson in the linked article) try to paint frame interpolation as objectively bad.
It is. They go to a lot of effort to make sure things look right and then motion interpolation shits all over that.
Re: (Score:3)
They go to a lot of effort to make sure things look right
Yeah, but they grew up in the age of film and think 24 Hz 'looks right'. There's nothing objectively superior to stuttery motion, it's just what they've learned to expect and anything else feels wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
There's nothing objectively superior to stuttery motion
There is. It's what it hides.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not stuttery, it's the motion blur which is an artistic effect and also to be fair just what we are used to.
Peter Jackson famously tried 48FPS for the Hobbit and everybody hated it so DP's and directors are incentivized to stick with 24FPS.
Re: (Score:2)
48fps isn't bad on its own, but the whole pipeline for VFX needs a lot more reworking to look natural at a high framerate. And they failed at that (and every scene was composited with VFX).
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly so it costs more and there is going to be a perception issue to overcome with the audience so there is little incentive on a multi-million dollar production to roll the dice with anything besides 24 flat, which to me is fine. The complaints of jittery, hard to follow action are directing choices 99% of the time. Plenty of examples of fast action at 24 looking terrific and easy to follow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Unpopular opinion (Score:3)
Any television worth a shit has a film mode.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Unpopular opinion (Score:2)
It changes the refresh rate. Sometimes to 24, sometimes 48. Depends on the set. If it doesn't, it's not a true film mode. A 240 Hz display can do a better emulation without actually changing rate than a 60 Hz panel, but it still doesn't look right.
Re: (Score:2)
It changes the refresh rate. Sometimes to 24, sometimes 48. Depends on the set.
Most 60hz era panels run at a fixed 60hz and employ some kind of interpolation to make up the difference. Film mode does not change this.
A 240 Hz display can do a better emulation without actually changing rate than a 60 Hz panel, but it still doesn't look right.
Any content that is an integer multiple of the native frequency of the panel and display modes are displayed the same regardless of whether the multiple is 1 or 10.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not all processing is alike.
IME most TVs do have a color setting with minimal processing, however.
Also IME most modern TVs have great color when set to such a profile. I have a cheap but functional color correction device (i1 Display LT) and I check them when I get them, using a PC source. My last SHARP AQUOS set was dead on. The cheap HiSense we have now is damned close. I force off the "motion compensation" feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah every digital display from your PC monitor to the $150,000 4K Christie projector that runs in the theater is doing lots of image processing.
What you described is exactly what the filmmaker want's, to make sure your display is calibrated to the same reference they used.
Even in the analogue days there is a long history of directors sending instructions to the projectionsists on how exactly they want their film presented:
The Best Letters Film Directors Sent to Projectionists [denofgeek.com]
Re: Unpopular opinion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Right. People don't realize that recording video on their phones make it almost impossible to not get jerky motion in video in daylight. The shutter speed isn't supposed to more than about 2x the frame rate to get proper motion blur so that you get smooth looking video footage.
The problem is that the phone's camera lens has a fixed aperture, and this means that it's almost impossible to get e.g. 1/50 shutter speed for 24fps shooting in the day time even at the lowest ISO, unless you attach a ND filter to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My wife has motion sickness, if motion smoothing is on, she can't look at the TV because it's immediate nausea.
It's fine to have the feature, but it should be auto-off.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fine to have the feature, but it should be auto-off.
Agreed, and this is all I was saying with my original post. Default off is perfectly fine, and probably the better choice, but please for the love of god don't remove the feature entirely, a minority of us actually like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody ever complains about resolution (spatial) upscaling being applied to low resolution media,
Yes they do. And I'll complain about colorizing old black and white movies too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they do.
Ok, fair point, I should have said "rarely" instead of "never". There certainly aren't the plethora of articles by self-important movie producers railing against it like there are for motion smoothing. I have made a few comments myself even, bemoaning the crappy bicubic or bilinear upscaling used by many display devices and advocating for something more advanced like lanczos or neural network upscaling (which is what I use for most video content on my PC).
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody ever complains about resolution (spatial) upscaling being applied to low resolution media,
This is simply not true as attested by the absurd number of upscalers and levers and knobs available to configure them. Personally I make sure the media player switches display mode to mirror content resolution and frequency in order to have the TV upscalers handle it because its algorithms are far more competent than cheap SOCs.
why is there such a hatred for temporal upscaling?
The problem with interpolation are artifacts like the soap opera effect.
Most of my time watching a screen of any kind (outside of work) is playing videogames on my PC. When I was able to upgrade my main display from 60Hz to 120Hz it was a whole new lease of life for all my games, the smoothness was a pleasure to behold. Having to watch any content (be it videogame cutscenes, movies, TV shows, sports) at 30fps or less is just painful to me (less so on CRTs), I want to watch moving pictures not a slideshow.
Movies run at 24 fps.
60hz/24 = 2.5
120z/24 = 5
A 120hz panel with matching mode is able to run movies at inte
Re: (Score:2)
A 120hz panel with matching mode is able to run movies at integer multiples which make them look far better. To display content at 24fps you hold the frame for a few refresh intervals between moving on to the next frame. When there is a mismatch as is the case for 60hz native displays and display modes that are not integer multiples of the panel resolution fancy algorithms are needed to make up the difference.
Something I probably should have mentioned is that most of the panels operate a fixed frequency. It isn't possible the way these things were designed to for example select a display mode for a 24fps film and just have the display shift down natively to the lower frequency.
There is a native panel frequency, mode frequency of link between source and display and content frequency. Ideally the way these systems would work is that the player selects a mode with a compatible frequency which changes the native o
Re: (Score:2)
and display modes that are not integer multiples of the panel resolution fancy algorithms are needed to make up the difference.
Those fancy algorithms are usually what's called a 3:2 pulldown (or some variation thereof). But yes you are correct that frame interpolation is easier and introduces less artifacts when the target framerate is an integer multiple of the source framerate.
Something I probably should have mentioned is that most of the panels operate a fixed frequency. It isn't possible the way these things were designed to for example select a display mode for a 24fps film and just have the display shift down natively to the lower frequency.
Any display with G-sync or Freesync technology should in theory (assuming the software/firmware supports such a function, they probably don't but it's certainly possible for a manufacturer to make them do so on future models if they cared to) already be ab
Re: (Score:2)
This is simply not true as attested by the absurd number of upscalers and levers and knobs available to configure them. Personally I make sure the media player switches display mode to mirror content resolution and frequency in order to have the TV upscalers handle it because its algorithms are far more competent than cheap SOCs.
Fair point, see my reply to omnichad above who made a similar point.
The problem with interpolation are artifacts like the soap opera effect.
You're confusing terms, the soap opera effect literally means something at higher frame rate and therefore increased perceived smoothness, like soap operas that were filmed at higher framerates. Yes if you use frame interpolation to increase the framerate of 24/30 fps content (thereby achieving the soap opera effect) the frame interpolation algorithm can introduce ugly visual artifacts, but those are separate from the soap opera affect its
Re: (Score:2)
When watching UK 25/50 TV I never saw any indication of framnerate. In fact I see no framerante issues above 15fps.
However, when "smoothing" is enabled I notice a strange, slow movement between frames. The soap opera effect makes me ill.
Separate (Score:2)
>"Roku TV Owners Complain That Motion Smoothing Is Stuck 'On' After an Update"
It is a good thing I use a "TV" as a monitor and have a separate devices feeding it, including a Roku Ultra. Because if any device forced me to use motion smoothing (or required me to turn it off EVERY TIME I played something), it would go right into the trash. At least in this case, it looks like it might be only when using the "roku" function in the TV, so it might have nothing to do with the HDMI inputs, so you could disco
"Owners"? (Score:3)
Roku TV owners are complaining that motion smoothing is "suddenly enabled on their TVs with no way to turn it off,"
I have news for these folks. If they didn't know this change was coming, didn't have a chance to refuse it, and are now waiting for Roku's 'beneficence' to give them back control of the hardware, then they don't own said hardware at all. People in today's society really need to learn to reflexively differentiate between owning something, and merely paying for it while it remains under the true owners' control.
Re: (Score:2)
... then they don't own said hardware at all
Ya know, we live in a society with a wide range of intellectual abilities present. Unless we are willing to disregard anyone with an intelligence level lower than about 110, then we should probably ought to have laws that protect that vulnerable population.
It is great that you and I are smart enough to see the deal for it is. Why should we allow others to exploit people who are explicitly not smart enough to see the deal for what it is?
Blocked at the router, thank God (Score:1)
My router blocks all callbacks to any IP owned by Roku, from telematics to OTA updates. We have 4 TCL Roku TVs and it would be a disaster if the visual vomit were stuck on.
Oddly, blocking callbacks to Roku also prevents the Apple TV app from working, but thankfully we don't give a shit about that.
SMRT (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> Dumb TVs forever!
I think there's a potential marketing gimmick there - "Dumb TV - no spyware, no added advertisements, no Internet requirement... just high quality image and sound like a TV is meant to provide!"
And then make sure it has all the usual inputs and maybe an AC power passthrough so you can more easily plug a small computer into it if you want it to be 'smart'. And then sell that computer too.
Re: (Score:2)
so you can more easily plug a small computer into it if you want it to be 'smart'. And then sell that computer too.
Fuckin' nailed it!
Re: (Score:2)
Smart TV's are also a false economy.
A TV with built in planned obsolescence!
I bought a smart TV in 2012 and it became a dumb TV just a few years later as the apps abandon the platform. Use the wrong CPU? DOnt have enough ram? Abandon!
Then again (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, all Star Wars movies these days look like crap.
Re: (Score:2)
"Star Wars: The Last Jedi director Rian Johnson once went so far as to say it makes "movies look like liquid diarrhea."
Then again, all Star Wars movies these days look like crap.
Yeah, blame some algorithm on a TV when you actually make liquid diarrhea of a movie,
Between Rian Johnson's Star Wars movie, Roku and motion interpolation, which ones resembles liquid diarrhea the most?
Re: (Score:3)
"Star Wars: The Last Jedi director Rian Johnson once went so far as to say it makes "movies look like liquid diarrhea."
Then again, all Star Wars movies these days look like crap.
Yeah, blame some algorithm on a TV when you actually make liquid diarrhea of a movie,
Between Rian Johnson's Star Wars movie, Roku and motion interpolation, which ones resembles liquid diarrhea the most?
The latest one "The Acolyte" directed by Harvey Weinstein's secretary Leslye Headland, is a dog's breakfast of it. She had absolutely no experience in storytelling or directing, and oh my gawd, doe the results show it.
A planet of lesbians (Headland wanted this to be the gayest Star Wars evah) has twin girls on it who have the force. When the male Jedis find out, they want to remove her for training.
Yes, the Jedi's are now evil. All men except for the guy from squid games are evil and stupid, and we ha
Re: (Score:2)
But what is worse, is that the reaction to any criticism is now standard accusations of "toxic male manbabies", review bombing, "this movie wasn't made for you" and any excuse that tells people if they don't like the product, there is something wrong with them, not the product.
Thing is you're sorta doing the thing, all you did was describe the story and call it bad writing without explaining why it's bad. Your first sentence pretty much summed it up: inexperienced director and bad writing.
The Jedi being not as good as they idealize and the fact they are blinded and complacent to their own actions is a concept the entire prequel trilogy sortof revolves around, not a new concept, the whole "Sith and Jedi are not actually far apart" is not new, at all. This is OT stuff.
A "morbidly
Re: (Score:2)
But what is worse, is that the reaction to any criticism is now standard accusations of "toxic male manbabies", review bombing, "this movie wasn't made for you" and any excuse that tells people if they don't like the product, there is something wrong with them, not the product.
Thing is you're sorta doing the thing, all you did was describe the story and call it bad writing without explaining why it's bad.
I could write a book about many things. Like how fans, who are the people giving money to Disney, find the retconning an issue. A light saber, which in the original trilogy, slices off Luke Skywalker's hand with no effort, and Darth maul in half, now is a quite survivable thing, after being plunged through a woman's chest. While a rather small dagger planted in the same area kills a woman. By the way, the woman who plays the strong independent young female Jedi does throw her lightsaber and it cuts right t
Re: (Score:2)
Which brings us to the real reason for their failures. Their new target audience, misandryst women, hasn't been interested in going in numbers large enough to offset the "toxic male manbabies" they chased away. The women who these movies are aimed at failed Disney by not flocking to the crap they've been putting out.
Disney is interested in making Disney princesses. Also, Disney princesses have to be perfect and flawless.
So, every story is a perfect princess navigating a dumb, flawed world that she gets to crush.
This is like complaining about a James Bond movie. The first two Star Wars prequels were like those with Ewan MacGreger and Liam Neelson being James Bond of the Star Wars world.
Re: (Score:2)
Which brings us to the real reason for their failures. Their new target audience, misandryst women, hasn't been interested in going in numbers large enough to offset the "toxic male manbabies" they chased away. The women who these movies are aimed at failed Disney by not flocking to the crap they've been putting out.
Disney is interested in making Disney princesses. Also, Disney princesses have to be perfect and flawless.
Very much so. And they used to do a pretty good job of it. Their product, mostly aimed at children, was entertaining for those into that, and often educational. I was more into the Pinocchio and Jiminy Cricket, and even as a kid, I figured out that "Snow White" managed to keep both boys and girls absorbed.
So, every story is a perfect princess navigating a dumb, flawed world that she gets to crush.
I think you are making a sort of hybrid yesterday's versus today's Disney. At one point, the princess was look
Seems to me... (Score:2)
...that Roku is a 4 letter word and should be treated as such.
Best avoided unless you want folks knowing you're THAT type of user... ;-)
Never mind (Score:2)
Dare they complain??? (Score:2)