Actually, SPAM (the food) stands for Spiced Pork and Ham. Spam (the email) became associated with SPAM after a Monty Python sketch with a load of Vikings chanting SPAM repeatedly. Lots of SPAM = pointless and unwanted = spam.
First of all, a quick search from the nifty little dictionary applet that sits in my Gnome toolbar got me this:
"WordNet (r) 2.0" Spam n
a canned meat made largely from pork
unwanted e-mail (usually of a commercial nature sent out in bulk) syn: junk e-mail
v : send unwanted or junk e-mail
"Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms (Version 1.9, June 2002)" SPAM Send Phenomenal Amounts of Mail (Usenet, EMP, telecommunication-slang)
Also, from what I'd heard - although I'm not a native English speaker, let alone an American, so I might be wrong - SPAM originally means just SPiced hAM, although most of the other explanations found here sound just as plausible.
Furthermore, I do not recall the details of the Monty Python sketch, but I do seem to recall reading of a really really annoying radio commercial for Spam, which was sung to "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean", but with slightly altered lyrics. I believe it went something like this (quoted from memory):
Worst, they think people will give up biometric data for a shitty $20! This is just a DVD, folks!
I do wonder... what is to stop someone selling (or, FWIW, giving away) AuthenticationFingers(TM), making them identical, therefore instantly defeating this system?
Not to mention the complexity of buying a DVD as a present... The AF would at least take care of that, in addition to the more... practical purposes.
Ah, well... what do I care, anyway?
At this rate, I am quite certain I will not buy a DVD very soon...
I'm running on a Duron 600, which was a relatively low-end processor at the time I bought it some... 6 years? ago.
Of course, I don't remember when I last booted into Windows. And a 98SE at that, not XP of any kind; I remember Win95 on a 386 and I wouldn't like to re-live the experience.
IQ tests that are in use today are becoming increasingly obsolete; if we define intelligence as a capability of dealing with new, unknown and never practiced situations, we can see that many people have taken the same type of IQ tests more than once.
Ever wondered why mathematicians and chess-players get better average results in IQ tests? It's simply because they're trained in pattern recognition.
Now we come to linguistics. You see, language is also a matter of pattern recognition, code switching etc. It is also one that most people use on a daily basis; therefore, any IQ tests dealing with normal conversation would not show great statistical differences between people (barring the politicians, whose average would probably be much lower than common).
Computers, OTOH, are not well-versed in language, so it is a nice way to test its capability of recognising patterns. If the program you mentioned is really that good, I can think of certain applications in linguistics... so as a linguist I, for one, welcome our new AI overlords. Especially if that program can be made to understand not only the meanings of words, but also the impossible contexts of words...
Don't forget, as a smart businessman, he knows how to sell his product.. Logging in is REALLY hard to sell.. Even for XP users (notice the pretty typing-free login icons in XP).. If XP required people to memorize passwords to do anything, then people would be use to it, and wouldn't bitch about it in Linux.
I just recently bought my father his first computer.
Dual-boot, WinXP and S.u.S.E Linux (it came recommended by a "Linux user", as he calls himself).
My father was completely computer illiterate, and his girlfriend even more so. However, they both have passwords on their Linux accounts - I'd set them up so as to have the same passwords their mobile phones have. It might not be great security, although they don't as yet even have Internet, so the whole question is quite moot. However, it is a good way to introduce passwords - my father said he understood that his password should be more complex, but that he's too old to remember that along with a million other things he's learning (he's even having problems with click, double click, click-and-hold and click-and-drag): therefore, when he finally does learn all the basic stuff, a new password will not be as complex a thing - especially when I finally get that.rpm that gtypist depends upon, so that he can learn how to type.
I didn't bother setting up their WinXP accounts to have passwords simply because they only ever use Windows to watch DVDs (and play Solitaire, sometimes) - I have yet to install libdvdcss (and gtypist, but that's another issue) on S.u.S.E. Besides, when they finally do get an Internet connection, they will only surf from their Linux accounts, especially because I'm quite certain they will both go looking for pr0n.
I find it quite amazing that a complete computer illiterate actually finds Linux/KDE combination more comfortable than WinXP. But that's maybe because he doesn't have any prejudices... except from what I'd told him.;)
Thus to have people adopt his product, he needs to soften the hard-core UNIX advocates's argument.
I told my father that surfing the Internet on Windows or from a root account is equal to having sex without protection... and on the Internet, you meet a whole lot of people. It's amazing what you can do with a good analogy.
People did not go to extreme lengths to block standard 468x60 ad banners that drove the explosive growth of internet properties in the 90's, either. Much of the hideous, aggressive advertising that is popping up today is a result of people blocking ads, or not clicking ads, or using means to get around ads.
Whoa, wait a sec...
So, people did not go to extreme lengths to block the ads that were normal, so the advertisers started making more agressive ads.
Makes sense... not.
If people didn't click on some of the ads, my guess would be that they weren't interested... which in turn means the initial ad was crap, or was advertising crap.
The more people make use of software or ad blocks or whatever new pop technology for getting Gen-X'rs more of what they want totally without reciprocation creates a new demand for software or advertising designs that thwart the attempts to block them.
So, when we block the ads that impair our surfing the web because they don't let us see the content of the page, we make them invent more agressive methods of advertising because by blocking the ads we've clearly shown that we don't give a damn as to what they're advertising.
I've stopped watching some of the (not very numerous) TV stations here in Croatia because about 40% of their programme is a combination of commercials and home shopping. Count in reality shows, and what is left is very little that would make me even contemplate watching their programme.
I turn of the radio when I hear the same commercial twice in less than 20 minutes; I heard and understood the first 28 times, thank you oh so very much!Advertisers have products that need to be marketed.
We have web content that we want to view.
Professional web publishers have a need to earn an income. The harder people fight to bypass these things, the harder the marketeers are going to fight to get around the method of evasion. You remember the 'equal and opposite reaction' thinggy....right?
Here's some equal and opposite reaction: we block the ads.
Ads are the action; our blocking the ads is the reaction.
More agressive advertising will cause new methods of ad blocking to be invented; finally, too agressive advertising will deter people.
So when people stop visiting pages that advertise too much, they'll invent even more agressive methods of advertising so as to make the remaining two people that actually view the page - i.e. the author and the advertiser - buy *everything*.
When standing in the supermarket aisle, looking at all of the laundry detergent choices, you will pick the one from the company that bombarded you with annoying ads, without realizing why.
You might remember the entertaining ad, but not the associated product.
You are most certainly completely wrong.
I have vowed that I would never, ever buy some of the detergents simply because the ads insulted my IQ and everyone's taste.
Not to mention that even if someone forgets what was it that this or that cool commercial was advertising, they will be sure to ask someone; and that someone will usually know.
And if a commercial is annoying, people will remember it because of its stupidity.
Whenever I quote one of the first really annoying detergent commercials, most people around me start screaming and running away; no doubt to buy another pack of the said detergent.
I don't watch commercials; when they're on, I either read or surf the web... or shut the unwanted sensory input out for as long as necessary.
Or, if I have absolutely no other choice, I make mental blacklists of the irritating dweebs that will never ever see my money just because they're too bloody annoying.
The broader concept is that of putting processes in little restricted-filesystem "jails," which is perfectly applicable to Windows. A process could think that it's dealing with C:\blah when it's actually in C:\Program Files\Applications\Thing\blah.
I seem to recall... JOIN... SUBST...
Man, was that a long time ago or what...
And then there were CD-ROM emulators for the cracked games we'd play...
Well, on the topic of great sounding distros, How about naming one "Cthulhu" (barring any existing copyright issues). Bonus would be the slogan, "Cthulhu Linux, it'll suck your face off."
that nVidia were able to create a memory controller which out performed Intel comes as no great surprise when you look at the history of both companies Intel of course has the inside information on their cpu's but they have always been trying for a performance reliability compromise or the other hand nVidia try for cutting edge 300 miles per hour or nothing technology and thats why we love em of course nVidia have always pulled off this speed with stability anyway so you may not see where i am coming from
Whoa!
This post is like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - I can see what you wrote, but it just passes before my eyes way too quickly.
Most passwords aren't safe because they're short, simple and guessable.
For my root password I use a 20-something character quote with an intentional typo; I could easily use 50 as well[1].
So it is a bother to type, but how many times a day do you really log in to your system?
At least it won't be that easy to guess, even with a dictionary...
Just don't use it as your.sig...
[1] The infamous example of Oh, Captain, my Captain, our fearful trip is done! is exactly 50 characters long; insert a typo wherever you will.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, from what I'd heard - although I'm not a native English speaker, let alone an American, so I might be wrong - SPAM originally means just SPiced hAM, although most of the other explanations found here sound just as plausible.
Furthermore, I do not recall the details of the Monty Python sketch, but I do seem to recall reading of a really really annoying radio commercial for Spam, which was sung to "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean", but with slightly altered lyrics. I believe it went something like this (quoted from memory):
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
SPAM SPAM - SPAM SPAM
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM - SPAM SPAM...
You get the picture...
I do wonder... what is to stop someone selling (or, FWIW, giving away) AuthenticationFingers(TM), making them identical, therefore instantly defeating this system?
Not to mention the complexity of buying a DVD as a present... The AF would at least take care of that, in addition to the more... practical purposes.
Ah, well... what do I care, anyway?
At this rate, I am quite certain I will not buy a DVD very soon...
*I*AM*NOMAD*
I really, really do not want a player that explodes if you use logic with it.
Leave that kind of design to Microsoft. Please.
Er... no.
I'm running on a Duron 600, which was a relatively low-end processor at the time I bought it some... 6 years? ago.
Of course, I don't remember when I last booted into Windows. And a 98SE at that, not XP of any kind; I remember Win95 on a 386 and I wouldn't like to re-live the experience.
X-Wing, Y-Wing, Z-Wing... I don't seem to recall a right-wing, though.
Uh huh. Quite the paradigm shift, there.
Quite so: from Arrakis to Teletubbies.
That's right.
Do you have a Trojan installed? Download and install this software to check!!!
Downloading...
Installing...
Checking...
Well, now you do!
Although we can see it was an SF movie; not even Windows has the fourth directive installed.
Windows crashes even in Gates' face...
IQ tests that are in use today are becoming increasingly obsolete; if we define intelligence as a capability of dealing with new, unknown and never practiced situations, we can see that many people have taken the same type of IQ tests more than once.
Ever wondered why mathematicians and chess-players get better average results in IQ tests? It's simply because they're trained in pattern recognition.
Now we come to linguistics. You see, language is also a matter of pattern recognition, code switching etc. It is also one that most people use on a daily basis; therefore, any IQ tests dealing with normal conversation would not show great statistical differences between people (barring the politicians, whose average would probably be much lower than common).
Computers, OTOH, are not well-versed in language, so it is a nice way to test its capability of recognising patterns. If the program you mentioned is really that good, I can think of certain applications in linguistics... so as a linguist I, for one, welcome our new AI overlords. Especially if that program can be made to understand not only the meanings of words, but also the impossible contexts of words...
I just recently bought my father his first computer.
Dual-boot, WinXP and S.u.S.E Linux (it came recommended by a "Linux user", as he calls himself).
My father was completely computer illiterate, and his girlfriend even more so. However, they both have passwords on their Linux accounts - I'd set them up so as to have the same passwords their mobile phones have. It might not be great security, although they don't as yet even have Internet, so the whole question is quite moot. However, it is a good way to introduce passwords - my father said he understood that his password should be more complex, but that he's too old to remember that along with a million other things he's learning (he's even having problems with click, double click, click-and-hold and click-and-drag): therefore, when he finally does learn all the basic stuff, a new password will not be as complex a thing - especially when I finally get that .rpm that gtypist depends upon, so that he can learn how to type.
I didn't bother setting up their WinXP accounts to have passwords simply because they only ever use Windows to watch DVDs (and play Solitaire, sometimes) - I have yet to install libdvdcss (and gtypist, but that's another issue) on S.u.S.E. Besides, when they finally do get an Internet connection, they will only surf from their Linux accounts, especially because I'm quite certain they will both go looking for pr0n.
I find it quite amazing that a complete computer illiterate actually finds Linux/KDE combination more comfortable than WinXP. But that's maybe because he doesn't have any prejudices... except from what I'd told him. ;)
Thus to have people adopt his product, he needs to soften the hard-core UNIX advocates's argument.
I told my father that surfing the Internet on Windows or from a root account is equal to having sex without protection... and on the Internet, you meet a whole lot of people. It's amazing what you can do with a good analogy.
So, people did not go to extreme lengths to block the ads that were normal, so the advertisers started making more agressive ads.
Makes sense... not.
If people didn't click on some of the ads, my guess would be that they weren't interested... which in turn means the initial ad was crap, or was advertising crap. The more people make use of software or ad blocks or whatever new pop technology for getting Gen-X'rs more of what they want totally without reciprocation creates a new demand for software or advertising designs that thwart the attempts to block them. So, when we block the ads that impair our surfing the web because they don't let us see the content of the page, we make them invent more agressive methods of advertising because by blocking the ads we've clearly shown that we don't give a damn as to what they're advertising.
I've stopped watching some of the (not very numerous) TV stations here in Croatia because about 40% of their programme is a combination of commercials and home shopping. Count in reality shows, and what is left is very little that would make me even contemplate watching their programme.
I turn of the radio when I hear the same commercial twice in less than 20 minutes; I heard and understood the first 28 times, thank you oh so very much! Advertisers have products that need to be marketed. We have web content that we want to view. Professional web publishers have a need to earn an income. The harder people fight to bypass these things, the harder the marketeers are going to fight to get around the method of evasion. You remember the 'equal and opposite reaction' thinggy....right? Here's some equal and opposite reaction: we block the ads.
Ads are the action; our blocking the ads is the reaction.
More agressive advertising will cause new methods of ad blocking to be invented; finally, too agressive advertising will deter people.
So when people stop visiting pages that advertise too much, they'll invent even more agressive methods of advertising so as to make the remaining two people that actually view the page - i.e. the author and the advertiser - buy *everything*.
It's just too horrible.
I have vowed that I would never, ever buy some of the detergents simply because the ads insulted my IQ and everyone's taste.
Not to mention that even if someone forgets what was it that this or that cool commercial was advertising, they will be sure to ask someone; and that someone will usually know.
And if a commercial is annoying, people will remember it because of its stupidity.
Whenever I quote one of the first really annoying detergent commercials, most people around me start screaming and running away; no doubt to buy another pack of the said detergent.
I don't watch commercials; when they're on, I either read or surf the web... or shut the unwanted sensory input out for as long as necessary.
Or, if I have absolutely no other choice, I make mental blacklists of the irritating dweebs that will never ever see my money just because they're too bloody annoying.
I seem to recall... JOIN... SUBST...
Man, was that a long time ago or what...
And then there were CD-ROM emulators for the cracked games we'd play...
OK, so it's not exactly the same thing...
I'd prefer Hastur Linux myself...
Every time you name it, it gets more powerful...
You don't want typos in your WEP key now, do you?
Whoa!
This post is like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - I can see what you wrote, but it just passes before my eyes way too quickly.
Carry on, nothing to see here...
Just reading A Deepness In The Sky by Vernor Vince...
That Focusing shit is scary...
Well, we might be safe... Anyone seen MacGyver lately?
... but this one looks the same as mine...
Most passwords aren't safe because they're short, simple and guessable. For my root password I use a 20-something character quote with an intentional typo; I could easily use 50 as well[1]. So it is a bother to type, but how many times a day do you really log in to your system? At least it won't be that easy to guess, even with a dictionary... Just don't use it as your .sig...
[1] The infamous example of Oh, Captain, my Captain, our fearful trip is done! is exactly 50 characters long; insert a typo wherever you will.