Georges Harik, product management director for Gmail, said that, on the first anniversary of the service's launch, some very active users had begun to worry that the 1 gigabyte of storage that had seemed immense a year ago would soon be used up.
"We've had anxiety attacks as a few of the people who have been heavy Gmail users have been coming close to the limit," Harik said. "They've been asking us, 'what are you going to do?'"
The company determined, Harik said, that the right thing to do would be "to keep giving people more space forever."
Better start finding a new home for your porno collection!
All my porn is in ASCII format, so it doesn't take much room.
So is mine, but those ASCII movies still take up space and I have over 100TB in my collection -- especially the new 4K movies. You should see how many monitors I had to put up to display a 4096 x 2160 xterm.
I ended up popping down some money to get 100gb of storage with Google. I'm at about 25gb at the moment, and it only costs me about $1 a month.
I feel a little bait-and-switched by Google. They used to advertise unlimited email storage. Now I'm bumping up against the 15GB limit for email+photos+drive storage and the only way out without paying is to delete old photos, which have been shared with countless family and friends so I don't know who still looks at which albums. They offer "unlimited" storage of reduced quality photos uploaded from phones, but there's no way to retroactively downgrade existing photos.
I dunno, it's hardly false advertising to say "this policy isn't working for us, we're changing it going forward, but you can keep that extra storage for 12 months as compensation". Because that's what they're doing. Is it false advertising to ever change what plans you choose to offer?
If they advertised unlimited storage with no restrictions or time limit, and someone spent considerable time (and internet bandwidth) to upload 75TB of data, then does indeed seem like false advertising to some back later and say "Oh, hey, you know when we said unlimited? Well, we meant "with limits", so you have to move your data somewhere else".
Surely someone at Microsoft marketing has a dictionary and could have looked up the word "unlimited" before advertising that storage was "unlimited", and I'm certain that their infrastructure team warned marketing that they can't really support unlimited storage for the world. By advertising their product as "unlimited", they gained a competitive advantage over providers who truthfully advertised the limits of their product - why use a competitor that offers "only" 1GB or 1TB or whatever of free storage when you can use Microsoft for unlimited storage?
We all totally understand battery life being a major factor in new design, although most of us have had to deal with shitty batteries long enough that not plugging it in every day would be downright weird by now.
What I fail to grasp as a (reasonable?) user of smartphones for the last decade, is how often people crack the shit out of their screens, which apparently happens so damn often that it's now THE major feature in new smartphone tech.
It's strange that we market anti-clumsy as some kind of awesome thing.
I take my phone out of my pocket at least 10 times a day (its my MFA authenticator for a number of services) so that's over 3000 times a year, and if I'm unlucky, I only need to drop it one of those times to crack the screen. I keep my phone in a protective case and haven't cracked the screen yet out of a half dozen or so drops.
ford doesnt sell a corvette and chevy doesnt sell a gt40. Having fewer choices does not address the issue.
If you're buying a $50K - $100K sports car, you can stop complaining about being price gouged. What do you mean "fewer choices"? If manufactures sold direct, they would (or at least could) still manufacturer the same cars. But even today, if you *have* to have a Corvette, you still have only one manufacturer to choose from. You might have dozens of dealers to buy from,but they get the cars from the same source and pricing is not going to be radically different, and depends on how good you are at negotiation.
If the Corvette is too pricey, you still have other options, there are plenty of other cars in that price range, Ford, Porsche, Lotus, BMW, Mercedes, etc, and even Tesla, has performance cars in that price range. Sure, they are not a Corvette, but no one *needs* a Corvette, they may want one, but they don't need one, so GM can't endlessly jack up the price. But GM can price it at a premium (as high as the market will bear) whether it's sold through a dealer or not. Lots of people *want* an iPhone, but for those that can't afford $900 for a phone, there are lots of other options.
With a firearm related homicide rate 1/30th that of the USA (and firearm related deaths due to all causes about 1/12th that of the USA), maybe their gun control isn't so insane.
Who cares how people are being murdered? Do victims or family and friends of victims give two shits about your arbitrary selectors or do they care about not being murdered?
If the yearly gun murder rate went down by 1000 and the yearly knife murder rate went up by 1000 to compensate for lack of guns your policies have in fact solved nothing even though cherry picked statistics would fool all who wanted to believe in a much different outcome.
I have no insights into Australian politics or crime statistics or what the optimal policy is or should be. I only know that propagating selection bias is unlikely to help anyone. I also know this is way off topic so I'm posting as AC to keep it under the radar.
The overall muder rate in Australia is about 1/4 that of the USA, so apparently taking away the guns doesn't make killers kill their victims with knives (which is a lot harder to do -- much easier to shoot someone from across the room than get within arms reach so you can stab them, giving the victim a chance to fight back.)
And I'll just throw this out there, last night in my town, someone not only managed to shoot himself in the foot, but the same bullet seriously injured a 9 year old neighbor:
if chevy sells a car to a dealer for $16000 and the dealer after haggling and whatnot sell the car to me for $17600 then the dealer made their 10% profit. Cut out the dealer and buy from the manufacturer and they will just sell me the car direct for $17600. It is foolish to think anything else would happen.
The main difference is now my 10% has left my community and is being spent in detroit (or wherever). This whole idea "if I can just buy my coke directly from the man My drugs will be cheaper" is unrealistic. That is not how the world works or has ever worked.
Then don't buy the Chevy - buy a Ford, or a Honda or a Kia. There are few cars that don't have comparable models across multiple manufacturers (Tesla is a notable example), and if Chevy can drop their price by selling direct, why wouldn't they do that to make their car more attractive to someone who would otherwise buy one from another manufacturer?
The point is that if I want a Tesla Model X, I have to pay at least 69,900. There is no way to negotiate, which is called price fixing.
Just like Apple - I offered a fair $125 price for a new iPhone, and they completely ignored my offer, they clearly are price fixing. Clearly, just like Tesla sells the only Tesla Model X available on the market, Apple sells the only iPhone on the market, so they are monopolies and we shouldn't let them get away with price fixing!
Australians have been selling their freedom for security for years. Socialized society, insane gun control, and their crypto attitude is just horrible.
With a firearm related homicide rate 1/30th that of the USA (and firearm related deaths due to all causes about 1/12th that of the USA), maybe their gun control isn't so insane.
I like NASA. I like space exploration. However, I don't like NASA spending its limited time and resources to buy up antiques when it could be working on MORE space exploration.
It's PR, which NASA has to do to secure funding - if you don't like NASA doing PR, then give them a guaranteed funding source that's not subject to the whims of the government that changes funding priorities every 4 years for projects that take decades to complete.
When you can't outbid a scrap metal dealer (or, if you must, can't convince the scrap metal dealer in question to flip the item to you for a quick 100% profit), how much effort were you really putting into this?
It's kind of hard to outbid a scrap dealer when you aren't aware of the sale.
But are you ok with them submitting and getting paid for claims for that fictitious person?
Claims have to be submitted through a medical office, which checks your ID. Besides, if you want to submit false claims, you can do that as easily for a real person as a fictitious person. The only difference is that the real person will have much less difficulty cashing the checks. Banks also check IDs.
Sorry, but I just don't see the point in getting an insurance policy for a non-existent person.
Does anyone understand the Dvorak scale well enough to comment on how this hurricane supposedly broke it and yet it can be accurately put on the scale as an 8.3?
And more importantly, what is it on the Qwerty scale, which is the one that most of us know?
I'm sure submitting false information on those forms is illegal.
Why should it be illegal? If you want to buy insurance for someone that doesn't exist, that is fine with me.
But are you ok with them submitting and getting paid for claims for that fictitious person? Buying insurance for a fictitious person should be as illegal as submitting claims for them, so if you find that someone has bought 1000 policies for fictitious people, you have a tool to stop them before they start submitting claims.
They keep forgetting ONE BIG reason people order from Amazon.com.
You don't have to pay Sales Tax on the items.
Yes, I know you are supposed to pay use taxes in most states, but seriously, who does that?
In my area, local plus state sales tax is in the upper 9.x% range....when I buy a large ticket item online, I save a substantial amount of $$. I'd have to pay that sales tax if I bought the same item on Walmart.com or picked it up in the store.
I know that someday this will come to an end, but in the meantime, I'd have to guess a LARGE number of people order from Amazon and others to avoid high sales tax in states that charge it....
Amazon collects sales tax in most states now:
Items sold by Amazon.com LLC, or its subsidiaries, and shipped to destinations in the following states are subject to tax:
Arizona Indiana Minnesota Ohio West Virginia California Kansas Nevada Pennsylvania Wisconsin Connecticut Kentucky New Jersey Tennessee Florida Maryland New York Texas Georgia Massachusetts North Carolina Virginia Illinois Michigan North Dakota Washington
My use of Amazon didn't go down after they started collecting sales tax -- I use Amazon for the convenience. It's still possible to avoid the sales tax collection by buying from an out of state Amazon Marketplace seller, but I've had so many bad experiences with them (obviously used products sold as new, broken product (in a box that someone wrote "Bad" on, product with missing pieces, etc) that unless at product is fulfilled by Amazon I rarely buy from a marketplace seller.
Is there any way to audit whether the dm-crypt installed on your device matches the source code? Few people compile their own kernel, so it seems that it would be easy for Google or cellular carrier to slip a back door into the module.
It's intended to have a chain of trust. The hardware verifies the boot partition, and the boot partition verifies the other partitions. If the signature on the system partition matches, then dm-crypt was not tampered with.
But that only verifies that dm-crypt was the one that Google (or verizon, or whoever) put there, I'm more interested in validating that the dm-crypt that's there matches the source code that everyone has looked at and trusts. It doesn't even have to be malicious, how do you know that a carrier doesn't say "Hey, if we comment out the slow parts of the encryption library, it's 90% faster and it sure looks like the data is still encrypted, so it should be safe".
Sure, I mean, what are the chances that the DoJ would collude with the NSA to keep secret surveillance secret? The DoJ is there to protect us from the excesses of the NSA, right?
...and what about the rest of my argument, that you so disingenuously ignored?
Well, I didn't think it was a serious argument:
Afterall, if you're a Terrist, why get an iPhone that all-but-requires an Apple ID, when you can get a "burner" Android phone for free, or nearly free, at every Mom and Pop "Cellular Phone Shack" in the world?
I have no answer for that since I don't know what phone a "Terrist" would use, nor do I think that Android is any more secure than Apple from NSA surveillance. And of course, the real problem of invasive government surveillance is that it doesn't just target terrorists, since anyone can be branded as terrorist with no evidence of wrongdoing at all, the problem is that it targets *everyone*.
Likewise, I wonder how secure Apple's encryption is -- their very public fight against the DoJ could just be a smokescreen to hide the fact that the government can trivially crack the phones, they just don't want anyone to know. Their fight against the DoJ brings this quote to mind: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
I'm sure the Government is going to get two branches to collude, plus Apple's counsel, all to bolster Apple's iOS sales, when everyone on Slashdot keeps saying that Android is the dominant platform, and that Apple isn't used by anyone but clueless morons with too much spendable cash and teenage girls wanting an iFashion Accessory.
Sure, I mean, what are the chances that the DoJ would collude with the NSA to keep secret surveillance secret? The DoJ is there to protect us from the excesses of the NSA, right?
That one does not mean what you think it does. "Protest" meant promise, specifically the protestations of eternal love and faithfulness of the queen to her husband. I know the bar for literacy isn't very high around here, but still.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a quotation from the 1599/ 1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. It has been used as a figure of speech, in various phrasings, to indicate that a person's overly frequent or vehement attempts to convince others of something have ironically helped to convince others that the opposite is true, by making the person look insincere and defensive.
In rhetorical terms, the phrase can be thought of as indicating an unintentional apophasis—where the speaker who "protests too much" in favor of some assertion puts into others' minds the idea that the assertion is false, something that they may not have considered before.
Regardless of whether the original Old English meaning of 'protest' is used or its more modern meaning, its still applies to a situation where someone is so effusive with their actions that it makes the actions seem insincere.
Literacy is more than looking at the literal definition of each word.
Slashdot Mirror
When did they ever advertise unlimited email storage?
http://www.internetnews.com/xS...
Georges Harik, product management director for Gmail, said that, on the first anniversary of the service's launch, some very active users had begun to worry that the 1 gigabyte of storage that had seemed immense a year ago would soon be used up.
"We've had anxiety attacks as a few of the people who have been heavy Gmail users have been coming close to the limit," Harik said. "They've been asking us, 'what are you going to do?'"
The company determined, Harik said, that the right thing to do would be "to keep giving people more space forever."
All my porn is in ASCII format, so it doesn't take much room.
So is mine, but those ASCII movies still take up space and I have over 100TB in my collection -- especially the new 4K movies. You should see how many monitors I had to put up to display a 4096 x 2160 xterm.
I ended up popping down some money to get 100gb of storage with Google. I'm at about 25gb at the moment, and it only costs me about $1 a month.
I feel a little bait-and-switched by Google. They used to advertise unlimited email storage. Now I'm bumping up against the 15GB limit for email+photos+drive storage and the only way out without paying is to delete old photos, which have been shared with countless family and friends so I don't know who still looks at which albums. They offer "unlimited" storage of reduced quality photos uploaded from phones, but there's no way to retroactively downgrade existing photos.
I dunno, it's hardly false advertising to say "this policy isn't working for us, we're changing it going forward, but you can keep that extra storage for 12 months as compensation". Because that's what they're doing. Is it false advertising to ever change what plans you choose to offer?
If they advertised unlimited storage with no restrictions or time limit, and someone spent considerable time (and internet bandwidth) to upload 75TB of data, then does indeed seem like false advertising to some back later and say "Oh, hey, you know when we said unlimited? Well, we meant "with limits", so you have to move your data somewhere else".
Surely someone at Microsoft marketing has a dictionary and could have looked up the word "unlimited" before advertising that storage was "unlimited", and I'm certain that their infrastructure team warned marketing that they can't really support unlimited storage for the world. By advertising their product as "unlimited", they gained a competitive advantage over providers who truthfully advertised the limits of their product - why use a competitor that offers "only" 1GB or 1TB or whatever of free storage when you can use Microsoft for unlimited storage?
Would it really have been so hard to link to the announcement in the summary:
http://www.minix3.org/conferen...
They gave everyone less than $5 and *that* is the customer service model to aspire to? "Sorry we suck, here's $5, go away"
We all totally understand battery life being a major factor in new design, although most of us have had to deal with shitty batteries long enough that not plugging it in every day would be downright weird by now.
What I fail to grasp as a (reasonable?) user of smartphones for the last decade, is how often people crack the shit out of their screens, which apparently happens so damn often that it's now THE major feature in new smartphone tech.
It's strange that we market anti-clumsy as some kind of awesome thing.
I take my phone out of my pocket at least 10 times a day (its my MFA authenticator for a number of services) so that's over 3000 times a year, and if I'm unlucky, I only need to drop it one of those times to crack the screen. I keep my phone in a protective case and haven't cracked the screen yet out of a half dozen or so drops.
How could they lose it? Surely after $2.5B spent on the program, they had enough money to slap a GPS tracker on it.
ford doesnt sell a corvette and chevy doesnt sell a gt40. Having fewer choices does not address the issue.
If you're buying a $50K - $100K sports car, you can stop complaining about being price gouged. What do you mean "fewer choices"? If manufactures sold direct, they would (or at least could) still manufacturer the same cars. But even today, if you *have* to have a Corvette, you still have only one manufacturer to choose from. You might have dozens of dealers to buy from,but they get the cars from the same source and pricing is not going to be radically different, and depends on how good you are at negotiation.
If the Corvette is too pricey, you still have other options, there are plenty of other cars in that price range, Ford, Porsche, Lotus, BMW, Mercedes, etc, and even Tesla, has performance cars in that price range. Sure, they are not a Corvette, but no one *needs* a Corvette, they may want one, but they don't need one, so GM can't endlessly jack up the price. But GM can price it at a premium (as high as the market will bear) whether it's sold through a dealer or not. Lots of people *want* an iPhone, but for those that can't afford $900 for a phone, there are lots of other options.
With a firearm related homicide rate 1/30th that of the USA (and firearm related deaths due to all causes about 1/12th that of the USA), maybe their gun control isn't so insane.
Who cares how people are being murdered? Do victims or family and friends of victims give two shits about your arbitrary selectors or do they care about not being murdered?
If the yearly gun murder rate went down by 1000 and the yearly knife murder rate went up by 1000 to compensate for lack of guns your policies have in fact solved nothing even though cherry picked statistics would fool all who wanted to believe in a much different outcome.
I have no insights into Australian politics or crime statistics or what the optimal policy is or should be. I only know that propagating selection bias is unlikely to help anyone. I also know this is way off topic so I'm posting as AC to keep it under the radar.
The overall muder rate in Australia is about 1/4 that of the USA, so apparently taking away the guns doesn't make killers kill their victims with knives (which is a lot harder to do -- much easier to shoot someone from across the room than get within arms reach so you can stab them, giving the victim a chance to fight back.)
Here, now you know how to fish.
Australia's robbery rate is about half (55%) that of the US, overall murder rate is about 1/4.
http://www.nationmaster.com/co...
And I'll just throw this out there, last night in my town, someone not only managed to shoot himself in the foot, but the same bullet seriously injured a 9 year old neighbor:
http://abc7news.com/news/san-j...
if chevy sells a car to a dealer for $16000 and the dealer after haggling and whatnot sell the car to me for $17600 then the dealer made their 10% profit. Cut out the dealer and buy from the manufacturer and they will just sell me the car direct for $17600. It is foolish to think anything else would happen. The main difference is now my 10% has left my community and is being spent in detroit (or wherever). This whole idea "if I can just buy my coke directly from the man My drugs will be cheaper" is unrealistic. That is not how the world works or has ever worked.
Then don't buy the Chevy - buy a Ford, or a Honda or a Kia. There are few cars that don't have comparable models across multiple manufacturers (Tesla is a notable example), and if Chevy can drop their price by selling direct, why wouldn't they do that to make their car more attractive to someone who would otherwise buy one from another manufacturer?
The point is that if I want a Tesla Model X, I have to pay at least 69,900. There is no way to negotiate, which is called price fixing.
Just like Apple - I offered a fair $125 price for a new iPhone, and they completely ignored my offer, they clearly are price fixing. Clearly, just like Tesla sells the only Tesla Model X available on the market, Apple sells the only iPhone on the market, so they are monopolies and we shouldn't let them get away with price fixing!
Australians have been selling their freedom for security for years. Socialized society, insane gun control, and their crypto attitude is just horrible.
With a firearm related homicide rate 1/30th that of the USA (and firearm related deaths due to all causes about 1/12th that of the USA), maybe their gun control isn't so insane.
I like NASA. I like space exploration. However, I don't like NASA spending its limited time and resources to buy up antiques when it could be working on MORE space exploration.
It's PR, which NASA has to do to secure funding - if you don't like NASA doing PR, then give them a guaranteed funding source that's not subject to the whims of the government that changes funding priorities every 4 years for projects that take decades to complete.
When you can't outbid a scrap metal dealer (or, if you must, can't convince the scrap metal dealer in question to flip the item to you for a quick 100% profit), how much effort were you really putting into this?
It's kind of hard to outbid a scrap dealer when you aren't aware of the sale.
Just pointing out...
The one that actually went to the moon stayed there.
The rovers on the moon are priceless too... though are apparently worth less than the billions of dollars it would take to retrieve them.
But are you ok with them submitting and getting paid for claims for that fictitious person?
Claims have to be submitted through a medical office, which checks your ID. Besides, if you want to submit false claims, you can do that as easily for a real person as a fictitious person. The only difference is that the real person will have much less difficulty cashing the checks. Banks also check IDs.
Sorry, but I just don't see the point in getting an insurance policy for a non-existent person.
But can you see the point in not allowing it?
Does anyone understand the Dvorak scale well enough to comment on how this hurricane supposedly broke it and yet it can be accurately put on the scale as an 8.3?
And more importantly, what is it on the Qwerty scale, which is the one that most of us know?
I'm sure submitting false information on those forms is illegal.
Why should it be illegal? If you want to buy insurance for someone that doesn't exist, that is fine with me.
But are you ok with them submitting and getting paid for claims for that fictitious person? Buying insurance for a fictitious person should be as illegal as submitting claims for them, so if you find that someone has bought 1000 policies for fictitious people, you have a tool to stop them before they start submitting claims.
They keep forgetting ONE BIG reason people order from Amazon.com.
You don't have to pay Sales Tax on the items.
Yes, I know you are supposed to pay use taxes in most states, but seriously, who does that?
In my area, local plus state sales tax is in the upper 9.x% range....when I buy a large ticket item online, I save a substantial amount of $$. I'd have to pay that sales tax if I bought the same item on Walmart.com or picked it up in the store.
I know that someday this will come to an end, but in the meantime, I'd have to guess a LARGE number of people order from Amazon and others to avoid high sales tax in states that charge it....
Amazon collects sales tax in most states now:
Items sold by Amazon.com LLC, or its subsidiaries, and shipped to destinations in the following states are subject to tax:
Arizona Indiana Minnesota Ohio West Virginia
California Kansas Nevada Pennsylvania Wisconsin
Connecticut Kentucky New Jersey Tennessee
Florida Maryland New York Texas
Georgia Massachusetts North Carolina Virginia
Illinois Michigan North Dakota Washington
My use of Amazon didn't go down after they started collecting sales tax -- I use Amazon for the convenience. It's still possible to avoid the sales tax collection by buying from an out of state Amazon Marketplace seller, but I've had so many bad experiences with them (obviously used products sold as new, broken product (in a box that someone wrote "Bad" on, product with missing pieces, etc) that unless at product is fulfilled by Amazon I rarely buy from a marketplace seller.
Is there any way to audit whether the dm-crypt installed on your device matches the source code? Few people compile their own kernel, so it seems that it would be easy for Google or cellular carrier to slip a back door into the module.
It's intended to have a chain of trust. The hardware verifies the boot partition, and the boot partition verifies the other partitions. If the signature on the system partition matches, then dm-crypt was not tampered with.
But that only verifies that dm-crypt was the one that Google (or verizon, or whoever) put there, I'm more interested in validating that the dm-crypt that's there matches the source code that everyone has looked at and trusts. It doesn't even have to be malicious, how do you know that a carrier doesn't say "Hey, if we comment out the slow parts of the encryption library, it's 90% faster and it sure looks like the data is still encrypted, so it should be safe".
Sure, I mean, what are the chances that the DoJ would collude with the NSA to keep secret surveillance secret? The DoJ is there to protect us from the excesses of the NSA, right?
...and what about the rest of my argument, that you so disingenuously ignored?
Well, I didn't think it was a serious argument:
Afterall, if you're a Terrist, why get an iPhone that all-but-requires an Apple ID, when you can get a "burner" Android phone for free, or nearly free, at every Mom and Pop "Cellular Phone Shack" in the world?
I have no answer for that since I don't know what phone a "Terrist" would use, nor do I think that Android is any more secure than Apple from NSA surveillance. And of course, the real problem of invasive government surveillance is that it doesn't just target terrorists, since anyone can be branded as terrorist with no evidence of wrongdoing at all, the problem is that it targets *everyone*.
Likewise, I wonder how secure Apple's encryption is -- their very public fight against the DoJ could just be a smokescreen to hide the fact that the government can trivially crack the phones, they just don't want anyone to know. Their fight against the DoJ brings this quote to mind: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
I'm sure the Government is going to get two branches to collude, plus Apple's counsel, all to bolster Apple's iOS sales, when everyone on Slashdot keeps saying that Android is the dominant platform, and that Apple isn't used by anyone but clueless morons with too much spendable cash and teenage girls wanting an iFashion Accessory.
Sure, I mean, what are the chances that the DoJ would collude with the NSA to keep secret surveillance secret? The DoJ is there to protect us from the excesses of the NSA, right?
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
That one does not mean what you think it does. "Protest" meant promise, specifically the protestations of eternal love and faithfulness of the queen to her husband. I know the bar for literacy isn't very high around here, but still.
I don't see how I used it incorrectly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a quotation from the 1599/ 1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. It has been used as a figure of speech, in various phrasings, to indicate that a person's overly frequent or vehement attempts to convince others of something have ironically helped to convince others that the opposite is true, by making the person look insincere and defensive.
In rhetorical terms, the phrase can be thought of as indicating an unintentional apophasis—where the speaker who "protests too much" in favor of some assertion puts into others' minds the idea that the assertion is false, something that they may not have considered before.
Regardless of whether the original Old English meaning of 'protest' is used or its more modern meaning, its still applies to a situation where someone is so effusive with their actions that it makes the actions seem insincere.
Literacy is more than looking at the literal definition of each word.