[e2e] evolution of bandwidth as a term
John Day
day at std.com
Thu Oct 2 14:34:09 PDT 2003
At 12:32 -0700 10/2/03, Loki Jorgenson wrote:
>As an academic who has worked on the nature of language evolution, I
>would suggest that it is "natural" for meaning to evolve and for
>conservative forces to resist that change. Quoting (I think it was)
>Twain,
> "Change is coming. It's probably for the better. I won't like it".
>
>There is a cost for "conflating terms" and there is a cost for
>maintaining the distinction between terms. And the human organism will
>optmize language for effectiveness. Or at least that is how the
>evolutionary model describes it.
>
>Whether right or wrong to "misuse" the word bandwidth by any given value
>system, it *is* how the meaning is currently communicated. And, I would
>guess, how we will likely use the word in the future. Unless of course
>conservative forces are able to resist successfully and enforce the
>codification of conduct and usage.
>
>Regardless, I suggest that being judgemental and critical of the
>individuals on this list is counter-productive to the purpose of its
>existence. Joining it should indicate subscription to its objectives, I
>would think.
>
>Agreed?
NO!
The Internet nor much else of the modern world could not have been
built without carefully defining and adhering to the definitions of
such things as: bandwidth, mass, joule, kilogram, power, charge,
bit, watt, etc. Getting terms right and sticking to them is crucial
for all scientific pursuits, if not intellectual pursuits. Although,
I am aware that certain "disciplines" have made much in the last few
years about ignoring such things. But as far as I am concerned they
can all go Fish!
Take care,
John
And I was greatly embarrassed when the lesser campus of my alma mater
hired him. ;-)
More information about the end2end-interest
mailing list