A measurement of the severity of spam invented by long-time
hacker Seth Breidbart, used for programming cancelbots. The
Breidbart Index takes into account the fact that excessive
multi-posting EMP is worse than
excessive cross-posting ECP. The
Breidbart Index is computed as follows: For each article in a
spam, take the square-root of the number of newsgroups to which
the article is posted. The Breidbart Index is the sum of the
square roots of all of the posts in the spam. For example, one
article posted to nine newsgroups and again to sixteen would have
BI = sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) = 7. It is generally agreed that a spam
is cancelable if the Breidbart Index exceeds 20.
The Breidbart Index accumulates over a 45-day window. Ten
articles yesterday and ten articles today and ten articles
tomorrow add up to a 30-article spam. Spam fighters will often
reset the count if you can convince them that the spam was
accidental and/or you have seen the error of your ways and won't
repeat it. Breidbart Index can accumulate over multiple authors.
For example, the "Make Money Fast" pyramid scheme exceeded a BI
of 20 a long time ago, and is now considered "cancel on
sight".
Node:bring X to its
knees, Next:brittle,
Previous:Breidbart
Index, Up:= B =
bring X to its knees v.
[common] To present a machine, operating system, piece of
software, or algorithm with a load so extreme or pathological that it grinds to a halt.
"To bring a MicroVAX to its knees, try twenty users running vi -- or four running EMACS." Compare hog.
Node:brittle, Next:broadcast storm, Previous:bring X to its
knees, Up:= B =
brittle adj.
Said of software that is functional but easily broken by
changes in operating environment or configuration, or by any
minor tweak to the software itself. Also, any system that
responds inappropriately and disastrously to abnormal but
expected external stimuli; e.g., a file system that is usually
totally scrambled by a power failure is said to be brittle. This
term is often used to describe the results of a research effort
that were never intended to be robust, but it can be applied to
commercial software, which (due to closed-source development)
displays the quality far more often than it ought to. Oppose
robust.