Pablo Brenner & Sergio Fogel Blog

Se confia en lo que se  ve por Internet en igual medida  que lo que vemos por TV y en las recomendaciones de amigos . Sin embargo,  se tiene un menor grado de confianza en los blogs (- para que estare escribiendo esto? me pregunto ) siendo clasificado como de lo menos confiable de la información que recibimos

En el relevamiento a mas de 27000 personas (entre 18 y 55 años)  realizado  en Australia, Europa, EEUU, Japon , China y Corea  por  TNS se dio para elegir entre : Noticias online, sitios de empresas, noticias de la TV, diarios gratuitos, Wikipedia, publicaciones empresariales, diarios  online pagos, recomendaciones de amigos, sitios de comparación de productos, blogs, folletos empresariales  impresos

En promedio , mas de un 40% expreso confianza en las recomendaciones de amigos, en el caso de los chinos este porcentaje trepo al 56%

Un porcentaje similar (41%) manifestó confianza en lo que ve y escucha por la TV y análogo en lo que lee a través de la prensa escrita

En EEUU la confianza por las noticias online ya supera lo que se recibe vía TV (38 % y 33% respectivamente) y los italianos solo creen en un 24%  lo que les cuentan  vía la TV

Alineado con las pautas culturales que conforman  dichas sociedades, los países escandinavos,  son los que tiene mayor confianza en las noticias online , 50% en promedio de los 4 países

En el Reino Unido, plagado desde tiempo de prensa chatarra, la desconfianza es significativa (solo un 23% les cree),  lo que contrasta con una confianza de un 40%  a lo que leen online

Los Blogs  llegan a un  pobre 10% de confianza  en promedio y la situación es peor en Holanda,Noruega, Alemania y Suecia , solo un magro 5% (no me frustro demasiado , ya que ni siquiera podrían desconfiar de un texto escrito en un idioma que no entienden 😉  ). No perdamos las esperanzas,  los orientales de China y Corea confían en un 24 y 22% en  este medio de información

Sin embargo, los Chinos son especialmente escépticos de Wikipedia (solo 26% le creen),  lo que contrasta  claramente  con la mitad de los entrevistados alemanes  que dan por bueno a Wikipedia  , y a su vez  es el medio de los antes citados  que mas confianza les genera (más…)

Read Full Post »

Siguiendo con el post de Mushky, acá está el video que dio origen al término SPAM. Dejen pasar los primeros 30 segundos que son el final de otro sketch. Hay miles de copias en la vuelta, la que elegi tiene subtitulos en ingles.

Read Full Post »

Hay terminos que se usan en forma frecuente y , a veces, no se sabe como surgieron . Los origenes son  a veces sorprendentes

Transcribo para el caso de SPAM ,desde Wikipedia,   :»It is widely believed the term spam is derived from the 1970 SPAM sketch of the BBC television comedy series «Monty Python’s Flying Circus».[11] The sketch is set in a cafe where nearly every item on the menu includes SPAM luncheon meat. As the waiter recites the SPAM-filled menu, a chorus of Viking patrons drowns out all conversations with a song repeating «SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM… lovely SPAM, wonderful SPAM», hence «SPAMming» the dialog. The excessive amount of SPAM mentioned in the sketch is a reference to British rationing during World War II.[citation needed] SPAM was one of the few meat products that was excluded from rationing, and hence was widely available. In the 1980s the term was adopted to describe certain abusive users who frequented BBSs and MUDs, who would repeat «SPAM» a huge number of times to scroll other users’ text off the screen.[12] In early Chat rooms services like PeopleLink and the early days of AOL, they actually flooded the screen with quotes from the Monty Python Spam sketch. With internet connections over phone lines, typically running at 1200 or even 300 BAUD, it could take an enormous amount of time for a spammy logo, drawn in ASCII art to scroll to completion on a viewer’s terminal. Sending an irritating, large, meaningless block of text in this way was called spamming. This was used as a tactic by insiders of a group that wanted to drive newcomers out of the room so the usual conversation could continue. It was also used to prevent members of rival groups from chatting—for instance, Star Wars fans often invaded Star Trek chat rooms, filling the space with blocks of text until the Star Trek fans left. This act, previously called flooding or trashing, came to be known as spamming. The term was soon applied to a large amount of text broadcast by many users. It later came to be used on Usenet to mean excessive multiple posting—the repeated posting of the same message. The unwanted message would appear in many if not all newsgroups, just as SPAM appeared in all the menu items in the Monty Python sketch. The first usage of this sense was by Joel Furr[15] in the aftermath of the ARMM incident of March 31, 1993, in which a piece of experimental software released dozens of recursive messages onto the news.admin.policy newsgroup. This use had also become established—to spam Usenet was flooding newsgroups with junk messages. The word was also attributed to the flood of «Make Money Fast» messages that clogged many newsgroups during the 1990s.In 1998, the New Oxford Dictionary of English, which had previously only defined «spam» in relation to the trademarked food product, added a second definition to its entry for «spam»: «Irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of newsgroups or users.» There are three popular false etymologies of the word «spam». The first, promulgated by early spammers Canter & Siegel, is that «spamming» is what happens when one dumps a can of SPAM luncheon meat into a fan blade. The second is the backronym «shit posing as mail.» The third is similar, using «stupid pointless annoying messages.» Another false etymology is the Esperanto interpretation: The term spamo (with the o-ending designating nouns) makes sense as «senpete alsendita mesaĝo», which means «a message sent to someone without request».

Read Full Post »