[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)
>    "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.


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,

And I was greatly embarrassed when the lesser campus of my alma mater 
hired him.  ;-)

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list