[e2e] evolution of bandwidth as a term

[Cannara]

So Joe, or Joseph, or Josephine (I guess not :), or Josiah, or...?  "Hosts"
and "routers" may also be humans and tasks for them, so what is the point?  Is
the point that we have some cavities in our teeth naturally, so we should do
nothing to prevent more?  These examples are all "straw men", as you know, and
there's probably another term or two just in English for "straw man", like
"bogus argument", or "disingenuous", but that's hardly the point. The point is
that there's a plethora of long-standing terms and units for information rate,
data rate, etc.  Why subvert another term just because someone's lazy,
ignorant or manipulative?  Particularly in science this is a no no (for which
there are many redundant terms as well, I'm sure :).

Alex

Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> Ted Faber wrote:
> >
> > To restate, I think people should strive for clairity in their
> > expression, but it's also important to recognize that language is
> > inherently ambiguous, especially when ideas are in flux.
> 
> I second Ted, though (to compound the confusion of multiple
> definitions), a second Ted would be redundant ;-)
> 
> Just in case the notion of context is lost, this is the end2end-interest
> list, where bandwidth isn't liable to be interpreted as frequency
> deltas. Here are a few other terms with similar levels of confusion
> elsewhere, but which appear to have commonly-accepted definitions on
> this list:
> 
>         Pascal          on this list usually means a language,
>                         rather than a unit of pressure
> 
>         transport       on this list means an end-to-end
>                         protocol adding value beyond endpoint
>                         delivery,
>                         rather than what ATP helps electrons do,
>                         or what glass does with photons
> 
>         link            on this list means a physical connection
>                         between one or more hosts or routers,
>                         rather than a golf course, a component of
>                         a chain, or a unit of length in surveying
> 
> This is why the dictionary has multiple definitions for many words,
> whether some are loosely related or not related at all.
>