It was the older online geek culture which labeled unwanted email spam. Based off the popularity of Monty Python with that group, The name choice was most likely a reference to the sketch.
NOW.... Where did the idea for the Sketch come from?
Considering the influence and ability of classic Brit TV (Science Fiction and Comedy being the 2 biggest contributors) to bridge the pond... I honestly would not be surprised if most people outside of the UK know or knew about the 'everybody gets it, nobody wants it' Brit-ism, and therefor didn't make the connection.
Actually something that I kinda find interesting is some stuff within the second part of the Article. Appearently not only is hormel the sponsor of Monty Python's Spamalot, but they even show Python videos within their Spam museum.
It also indicated that they accept and have no problem with the meaning that the word 'spam' has taken in recent years, and with it's use as the slang term (in lowercase). Their issue comes from the use of the word "Spam" (capitilized) in trademarks since it was a word and trademark they created back in 1937.
IMHO... it's basically a case where they see the honor/flattery in having their product's name become so commonplace in today's society....in large part due us old-school geeks love of Monty Python and applying the term to unwanted emails WAAAAYYYYYY back in the early days.... But they also recognize that we all know that spam is unwanted email and SPAM is a lunch meat product. They also get the free advertising from people who may wonder how unwanted email got it's name, and creates a bit of brand recognition in that people are more likely to know about their product today because of the name. But, if other companies start using the name Spam in their company names or trademarks, it very likely could weaken their position.
In some ways... I kinda see it as a case of 'protect it or lose it'. Just like with certain other industries or businesses, sometimes a company needs to make a (sometimes) unpopular move to attempt to prevent unlicensed use of their trademark or copyrighted images (think cartoon characters...etc), otherwise they risk losing the ability to protect their position in the future. For example, Say a hospital uses a popular cartoon character in some buttons or a Tshirt, but didn't get permission. Said company may go thru the process of a cease and desist based off the protecting their position reasoning. Because they might believe however that there is no commercial gain for the user, and possibly even want to be charitable to the cause, they may then give the hospital a license/permission to use the exact same property free of charge (and also for the advertising potential). If however they did nothing to prevent the usage or try to protect their property in the first place.......sometime down the road somebody could attempt to use that exact same image in such a way that would harm their position (commercial gain... people could associate them with an undesirable position/company/whatever..etc). When they then attempt to put a stop to THIS use of their image, The court could easily find based off the previous uncontested usages that the original owner no longer has the right or power to claim exclusive ownership and control of the image. The logic would be that their lack of control in other situations would indicate that their forfeiting their right to control it has allowed said image to become part of the public domain or cultural awareness.
While that may sound kinda messed up, that's the legal system we live in. It also may not be as big a deal now for someone like hormel and SPAM... but think about some of the old cartoon characters and discontinued product logos from the years past. There are many which are now considered public domain or which people don't think twice about using even though technically they are still under protection, simply because the company which owns the image/logo hasn't bothered to protect it. Then we have images and characters which are older or from the same period which are still considered protected because the owner has gone thru the trouble of protecting it.
Man.... I really go off on long-winded tangents.... don't I?
On the Wired article with the story they have a diagram which shows how the whole proposed list is SUPPOSED to work. One of the notes included in it is that "Consumers may have to download a browser upgrade, Plug-in, or extension to get the Do-Not-Track list to work for them"
So.... lemme get this straight.... a Fed Maintained list....which required you to install a special application onto your computer...In order to keep private companies and websites from tracking you.
Now.... I'm not normally one who immediately expects some sort of grand conspiracy in every little thing, especcially something like this whole idea which is obviously the brainchild of people who don't have a clue how the internet and Web Actually function beyond their browser. But, part of me wonders if we'd see some of the big-brother groups like the NSA throw their support behind something like this since it basically would give them a great way to track people who are under the mistaken belief that they would not be able to be tracked.
Honestly, I can see them seeing it as another GREAT way to keep tabs on people. Hell, even the FBI might tap into it, and then hide behind the "online predator" defense if they get caught, simply because a large number of people who do things they shouldn't online do so because they think they can't be tracked/caught. Throw something like this list up for them, and I could see some people thinking it's another way to hide their online usage.
Been about a week... so not sure if you, or anybody... will even SEE this comment.... BUT..
I know I've heard of RadioHead... and a lot of people have... but remember, late 90's was about 10yrs ago. Think of all the people who heard them back then, but didn't give a big following who pretty much forgot about them in the time since. Or the people who never heard of them because they listened to country or some other musical genre and the time and therefor never crossed paths with them.
Then you've got the kids. 10yrs is a long time when you think about the current younger "record buying" generation. Hell.... I went to a haunted house this past weekend which had a radio station asking people trivia questions for radio-station freebies. They ended up asking a 17yr old girl which old band "Posh Spice" was in............She didn't have a clue and had NEVER heard of the Spice Girls. Considering how HUGE they got, you couldn't help but at least hear the name even if you didn't listen to any pop music.
You know what I find kind of amusing about this whole issue with Comcast and Net neutrallity, and the current Political system?
In many ways when it comes to the Comcast issue, people seem to be falling primarily into 2 main camps. Both are saying what they are doing is wrong, But some are saying "We need Gov'ment for force them to be net neutral." Others are saying "If you don't like it, Let your money do the walking, and go with another ISP."
The funny thing is, that MOST people tend to agree that the current state of the broadband ISP landscape in the US is in sad shape. You basically have 2 options. The Telco or the Cable company. Sure, in some areas, you may be lucky and have a viable 3rd option.... But that is few and far between. It is usually THIS simple fact that we are in a Duo-poly situation that causes most people to say the Gov'ment needs to step in.
What I'm wondering, is do these people that are saying that the fact there are only 2 viable options in Internet providers and therefor the Gov'ment needs to fix the situation even realize, For even a second....That basically our current Political landscape is pretty much in the EXACT same situation? For most of the country, you have 2 options....The Democrats or the Republicans. IF you are lucky, you may have a viable 3rd option, but that is few and far between.
They say that because the Cable Company and the Telco basically only have each other to compete against, and we as a consumer are forced to use one of them, That we can't trust them to change the situation. But the way I see it, we have the EXACT same issue with our political system. We have 2 main parties that basically are only competing among each other, and since we, the citizen, are forced to use them...
So the question now becomes..... When it comes to the Net Neutrallity, what needs to be fixed first? The way the political system works? (Support politics! Buy a politician!) Or the way the ISP's work?
Even more important.... If Comcast's actions in this situation can get so many people fired up like this (even those who are normally could care less about tech issues that the/. crowd is more likely to pay attention too)..... What is it going to take for people to get the same reaction towards the current Political system?
Possibly true,
But also think about all the people who have heard of Radiohead BECAUSE of the media hoopla surrounding the fact they have decided to sell the album direct to the public via the website and cut out the RIAA/Record Companies.
There is also the added purchase support from those who may not be big Radiohead fans who would normally buy a record from them, but who are purchasing the album in order to support their decision to embrace the web... and not something to outlaw like certain parties would appearently like to see happen.....
Ya, I've seen that you could get it to run thru ScummVM. The problem is that Lucas is traditionally VERY active in removing any abandonware it's produced from sites. There's also just the whole complexity factor, and part of this idea of remakes is to make a game accessable to people who've never played the game before. Can you honestly think of anybody who would go thru all the trouble of tracking down the binaries, and the audio, in order to run it thru ScummVM, when they have never heard of the game.......And maybe haven't even experienced any of Ron Gilbert's classic work?
Now THIS was a classic game, with the unique interface of using sound and music to interact with the objects around you. I seem to recall hearing that the game unfortunately was stuck in some sort of legal licensing limbo between Lucas* Games and the old defunct Microprose, which is why we haven't even seen the impressive Multimedia-PC version since it's original release.
Why can't I relive the adventures of Bobbin Threadbare?!
Trust me... Know about ScummVM... and it's a good compromise for what we have available now.
But part of the issue is finding those old Lucasfilm games. Don't know about you... but when was the last time you saw a legit copy of Zak McCrakken you could buy? Or even Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Either the Adventure... or the Action game...)
And then, there is the forgotten treasure from them which I would LOVE to see remade in this day and age.
Loom
Heh... My point exactly. The text interface left you so many more options on how to solve a puzzle. It wasn't simply a matter of clicking every icon on the item to figure out how to solve it.
It also left open such classic easter eggs such as the infamous LSL "Play Moses" command to cross the traffic.
Oooo... I'd almost love to see some of the classic Lucasfilm Games (NOT LucasArts..).... Zak McCraken for instance.
Maybe also some of the ole' Sierra games like the Space Quest series....
And maybe a side of Search For the King for simple nostalgia sakes.....Of course, Have to do the Sierra games with their original Typing interfaces since point-and-grope (oops... not LSL) interfaces take the intelligence outa the play requirements. Still think LucasFilm was the only company to ever do a useable Point-n-click interface in a graphic adventure...
How hard was it dealing with studio exec's who neither read nor understood Douglas Adam's work, while attempting to transition the original stories to film?
What do you feel is the single compromise made in the name of satisfying studio demands that the fans of the originals will be least likely to accept?
LOL... Which brings up an interesting question.... How will it report back to the home system? As this is a Microsoft Technology, if said sicko perverts are using a Mac or Linux, would it do any good? Or are the tracking methods used once again Microsoft exclusive?....Also makes me wonder if they are using another windows security hole in their efforts which could be exploited.
Other ISPs have access to resell Bellsouth's DSL connections. (Bellsouth owns the DSLAMS) In some areas Covad also has DSLAMS. And another ISP should have access to Bellsouth's lines.... it's just a pain in the ass for them to find the right person to contact for wholesale contacts. (I know... just went through it myself.)
BellSouth IS the Telco.... They have their own wiring because they are the Baby Bell in the South Eastern US.
The company is also so complex in it's setup in order to get around some regulations, and CYA others, that often their right hand doesn't know what the left is doing.
The Fed is actually working to try and help get broadband into rural areas as well. You can find some basic info on it here.
Basically... the Department of Agriculture, the same department which helped fund getting electricity into Rural areas, has earmarked about $2bil for helping ISP's offer high-speed internet into those same rural areas.
The problem is that the Telco's originally promised Fiber several years ago, and they keep going to the FCC trying to change their plans...using the Cable situation as their reasons.
For instance, many Telcos originally said they would do fiber to the house... then they said to the curb.... and now I think Verizon has said they will only run Fiber to the remote terminal.
If nothing more, this will remove the Telco's ability to blame things on the cable company's ability to play by different rules. And it will prevent a Duo-opoly between the telco and the cable company.
The Telco's paid for their networks too....
The big difference is that there are existing regulations... and zoning laws... that prevent others from laying down their own cable... or even phone service lines. In essence, the Cable companies have a legalized monopoly just like Ma Bell did years ago.
The difference is Ma Bell was forced to break apart into the Baby Bells and to open their network up to competition. The Cable companies have not....yet.
And nobody is saying they have to provide FREE equal access... they are free to charge in the same way the bells do to CLECs currently.
(Even though the Bells own the phone networks, it was CLECs like Covad, Northpoint, etc who drove the DSL revolution, and forced the Bells to get into the business. Hopefully the same type of innovation will help drive Cable technology advancement.)
The Technology exists for the Telco's to improve DSL, such as ADSL2 and ADSL2+... not to mention Reach Extended ADSL....
The big problem is the Telco's have been slow to upgrade or really take full advantage of the available technology. They have repeatedly gone to the FCC crying that Cable doesn't need to share their lines, and that being forced to abide by the Equal Access rules it is holding them back.
As a result, there have been many cases (such as the recent Anti-muni FCC ruling, or even Bellsouth's recent "Naked DSL" victory) in which a Bell has used the fact that Cable doesn't have to share in order to have a ruling in their favor, allowing them more in the way of monopoly control over DSL technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it sad that the first thing I thought of after reading how they say we may all just "run out of time", was a storyline from Sluggy Freelance? http://sluggy.com/daily.php?date=050210&&mode=weekly
(May want to continue on to the next week to complete the explaination of the science/logic behind the 'timeless zone')
Wouldn't be surprised if it's both, actually.....
It was the older online geek culture which labeled unwanted email spam. Based off the popularity of Monty Python with that group, The name choice was most likely a reference to the sketch.
NOW.... Where did the idea for the Sketch come from?
Considering the influence and ability of classic Brit TV (Science Fiction and Comedy being the 2 biggest contributors) to bridge the pond... I honestly would not be surprised if most people outside of the UK know or knew about the 'everybody gets it, nobody wants it' Brit-ism, and therefor didn't make the connection.
Actually something that I kinda find interesting is some stuff within the second part of the Article. Appearently not only is hormel the sponsor of Monty Python's Spamalot, but they even show Python videos within their Spam museum.
It also indicated that they accept and have no problem with the meaning that the word 'spam' has taken in recent years, and with it's use as the slang term (in lowercase). Their issue comes from the use of the word "Spam" (capitilized) in trademarks since it was a word and trademark they created back in 1937.
IMHO... it's basically a case where they see the honor/flattery in having their product's name become so commonplace in today's society....in large part due us old-school geeks love of Monty Python and applying the term to unwanted emails WAAAAYYYYYY back in the early days.... But they also recognize that we all know that spam is unwanted email and SPAM is a lunch meat product. They also get the free advertising from people who may wonder how unwanted email got it's name, and creates a bit of brand recognition in that people are more likely to know about their product today because of the name. But, if other companies start using the name Spam in their company names or trademarks, it very likely could weaken their position.
In some ways... I kinda see it as a case of 'protect it or lose it'. Just like with certain other industries or businesses, sometimes a company needs to make a (sometimes) unpopular move to attempt to prevent unlicensed use of their trademark or copyrighted images (think cartoon characters...etc), otherwise they risk losing the ability to protect their position in the future. For example, Say a hospital uses a popular cartoon character in some buttons or a Tshirt, but didn't get permission. Said company may go thru the process of a cease and desist based off the protecting their position reasoning. Because they might believe however that there is no commercial gain for the user, and possibly even want to be charitable to the cause, they may then give the hospital a license/permission to use the exact same property free of charge (and also for the advertising potential). If however they did nothing to prevent the usage or try to protect their property in the first place.......sometime down the road somebody could attempt to use that exact same image in such a way that would harm their position (commercial gain... people could associate them with an undesirable position/company/whatever..etc). When they then attempt to put a stop to THIS use of their image, The court could easily find based off the previous uncontested usages that the original owner no longer has the right or power to claim exclusive ownership and control of the image. The logic would be that their lack of control in other situations would indicate that their forfeiting their right to control it has allowed said image to become part of the public domain or cultural awareness.
While that may sound kinda messed up, that's the legal system we live in. It also may not be as big a deal now for someone like hormel and SPAM... but think about some of the old cartoon characters and discontinued product logos from the years past. There are many which are now considered public domain or which people don't think twice about using even though technically they are still under protection, simply because the company which owns the image/logo hasn't bothered to protect it. Then we have images and characters which are older or from the same period which are still considered protected because the owner has gone thru the trouble of protecting it.
Man.... I really go off on long-winded tangents.... don't I?
I thought of the SAME thing.
On the Wired article with the story they have a diagram which shows how the whole proposed list is SUPPOSED to work. One of the notes included in it is that "Consumers may have to download a browser upgrade, Plug-in, or extension to get the Do-Not-Track list to work for them"
So.... lemme get this straight.... a Fed Maintained list....which required you to install a special application onto your computer...In order to keep private companies and websites from tracking you.
Now.... I'm not normally one who immediately expects some sort of grand conspiracy in every little thing, especcially something like this whole idea which is obviously the brainchild of people who don't have a clue how the internet and Web Actually function beyond their browser. But, part of me wonders if we'd see some of the big-brother groups like the NSA throw their support behind something like this since it basically would give them a great way to track people who are under the mistaken belief that they would not be able to be tracked.
Honestly, I can see them seeing it as another GREAT way to keep tabs on people. Hell, even the FBI might tap into it, and then hide behind the "online predator" defense if they get caught, simply because a large number of people who do things they shouldn't online do so because they think they can't be tracked/caught. Throw something like this list up for them, and I could see some people thinking it's another way to hide their online usage.
I Agree!
;-)
Wait.... um... Guess I should clarify that I agree to both the Original post.... as well as your take on the Mods....
Been about a week... so not sure if you, or anybody... will even SEE this comment.... BUT..
I know I've heard of RadioHead... and a lot of people have... but remember, late 90's was about 10yrs ago. Think of all the people who heard them back then, but didn't give a big following who pretty much forgot about them in the time since. Or the people who never heard of them because they listened to country or some other musical genre and the time and therefor never crossed paths with them.
Then you've got the kids. 10yrs is a long time when you think about the current younger "record buying" generation. Hell.... I went to a haunted house this past weekend which had a radio station asking people trivia questions for radio-station freebies. They ended up asking a 17yr old girl which old band "Posh Spice" was in............She didn't have a clue and had NEVER heard of the Spice Girls. Considering how HUGE they got, you couldn't help but at least hear the name even if you didn't listen to any pop music.
You know what I find kind of amusing about this whole issue with Comcast and Net neutrallity, and the current Political system?
/. crowd is more likely to pay attention too)..... What is it going to take for people to get the same reaction towards the current Political system?
In many ways when it comes to the Comcast issue, people seem to be falling primarily into 2 main camps. Both are saying what they are doing is wrong, But some are saying "We need Gov'ment for force them to be net neutral." Others are saying "If you don't like it, Let your money do the walking, and go with another ISP."
The funny thing is, that MOST people tend to agree that the current state of the broadband ISP landscape in the US is in sad shape. You basically have 2 options. The Telco or the Cable company. Sure, in some areas, you may be lucky and have a viable 3rd option.... But that is few and far between. It is usually THIS simple fact that we are in a Duo-poly situation that causes most people to say the Gov'ment needs to step in.
What I'm wondering, is do these people that are saying that the fact there are only 2 viable options in Internet providers and therefor the Gov'ment needs to fix the situation even realize, For even a second....That basically our current Political landscape is pretty much in the EXACT same situation? For most of the country, you have 2 options....The Democrats or the Republicans. IF you are lucky, you may have a viable 3rd option, but that is few and far between.
They say that because the Cable Company and the Telco basically only have each other to compete against, and we as a consumer are forced to use one of them, That we can't trust them to change the situation. But the way I see it, we have the EXACT same issue with our political system. We have 2 main parties that basically are only competing among each other, and since we, the citizen, are forced to use them...
So the question now becomes..... When it comes to the Net Neutrallity, what needs to be fixed first? The way the political system works? (Support politics! Buy a politician!) Or the way the ISP's work?
Even more important.... If Comcast's actions in this situation can get so many people fired up like this (even those who are normally could care less about tech issues that the
Ok.... kinda offtopic.... sorry.
Possibly true, But also think about all the people who have heard of Radiohead BECAUSE of the media hoopla surrounding the fact they have decided to sell the album direct to the public via the website and cut out the RIAA/Record Companies.
There is also the added purchase support from those who may not be big Radiohead fans who would normally buy a record from them, but who are purchasing the album in order to support their decision to embrace the web... and not something to outlaw like certain parties would appearently like to see happen.....
Ya, I've seen that you could get it to run thru ScummVM. The problem is that Lucas is traditionally VERY active in removing any abandonware it's produced from sites. There's also just the whole complexity factor, and part of this idea of remakes is to make a game accessable to people who've never played the game before. Can you honestly think of anybody who would go thru all the trouble of tracking down the binaries, and the audio, in order to run it thru ScummVM, when they have never heard of the game.......And maybe haven't even experienced any of Ron Gilbert's classic work?
LOOM
Now THIS was a classic game, with the unique interface of using sound and music to interact with the objects around you. I seem to recall hearing that the game unfortunately was stuck in some sort of legal licensing limbo between Lucas* Games and the old defunct Microprose, which is why we haven't even seen the impressive Multimedia-PC version since it's original release.
Why can't I relive the adventures of Bobbin Threadbare?!
Trust me... Know about ScummVM... and it's a good compromise for what we have available now. But part of the issue is finding those old Lucasfilm games. Don't know about you... but when was the last time you saw a legit copy of Zak McCrakken you could buy? Or even Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Either the Adventure... or the Action game...) And then, there is the forgotten treasure from them which I would LOVE to see remade in this day and age. Loom
Heh... My point exactly. The text interface left you so many more options on how to solve a puzzle. It wasn't simply a matter of clicking every icon on the item to figure out how to solve it. It also left open such classic easter eggs such as the infamous LSL "Play Moses" command to cross the traffic.
Oooo... I'd almost love to see some of the classic Lucasfilm Games (NOT LucasArts..).... Zak McCraken for instance. Maybe also some of the ole' Sierra games like the Space Quest series.... And maybe a side of Search For the King for simple nostalgia sakes. ....Of course, Have to do the Sierra games with their original Typing interfaces since point-and-grope (oops... not LSL) interfaces take the intelligence outa the play requirements. Still think LucasFilm was the only company to ever do a useable Point-n-click interface in a graphic adventure...
How hard was it dealing with studio exec's who neither read nor understood Douglas Adam's work, while attempting to transition the original stories to film?
What do you feel is the single compromise made in the name of satisfying studio demands that the fans of the originals will be least likely to accept?
LOL... Which brings up an interesting question.... How will it report back to the home system? As this is a Microsoft Technology, if said sicko perverts are using a Mac or Linux, would it do any good? Or are the tracking methods used once again Microsoft exclusive? ....Also makes me wonder if they are using another windows security hole in their efforts which could be exploited.
Other ISPs have access to resell Bellsouth's DSL connections. (Bellsouth owns the DSLAMS) In some areas Covad also has DSLAMS. And another ISP should have access to Bellsouth's lines.... it's just a pain in the ass for them to find the right person to contact for wholesale contacts. (I know... just went through it myself.)
BellSouth IS the Telco.... They have their own wiring because they are the Baby Bell in the South Eastern US. The company is also so complex in it's setup in order to get around some regulations, and CYA others, that often their right hand doesn't know what the left is doing.
The Fed is actually working to try and help get broadband into rural areas as well. You can find some basic info on it here. Basically... the Department of Agriculture, the same department which helped fund getting electricity into Rural areas, has earmarked about $2bil for helping ISP's offer high-speed internet into those same rural areas.
The problem is that the Telco's originally promised Fiber several years ago, and they keep going to the FCC trying to change their plans...using the Cable situation as their reasons. For instance, many Telcos originally said they would do fiber to the house... then they said to the curb.... and now I think Verizon has said they will only run Fiber to the remote terminal. If nothing more, this will remove the Telco's ability to blame things on the cable company's ability to play by different rules. And it will prevent a Duo-opoly between the telco and the cable company.
The Telco's paid for their networks too.... The big difference is that there are existing regulations... and zoning laws... that prevent others from laying down their own cable... or even phone service lines. In essence, the Cable companies have a legalized monopoly just like Ma Bell did years ago. The difference is Ma Bell was forced to break apart into the Baby Bells and to open their network up to competition. The Cable companies have not....yet. And nobody is saying they have to provide FREE equal access... they are free to charge in the same way the bells do to CLECs currently. (Even though the Bells own the phone networks, it was CLECs like Covad, Northpoint, etc who drove the DSL revolution, and forced the Bells to get into the business. Hopefully the same type of innovation will help drive Cable technology advancement.)
The Technology exists for the Telco's to improve DSL, such as ADSL2 and ADSL2+... not to mention Reach Extended ADSL.... The big problem is the Telco's have been slow to upgrade or really take full advantage of the available technology. They have repeatedly gone to the FCC crying that Cable doesn't need to share their lines, and that being forced to abide by the Equal Access rules it is holding them back. As a result, there have been many cases (such as the recent Anti-muni FCC ruling, or even Bellsouth's recent "Naked DSL" victory) in which a Bell has used the fact that Cable doesn't have to share in order to have a ruling in their favor, allowing them more in the way of monopoly control over DSL technology.