George,
>Are you implying that words are given unto us from the ether,
assume a single meaning in
>a single idiom for eternity, and never pass from the earth?
The problem arises if you decide that a word means something, and then use
it to mean something else - while the original meaning is still in use.
Language does evolve - but simultaneous different meanings assigned randomly
reduce the comprehension. It gets back to Alice in Wonderland - where Humpty
Dumpty says that 'when I use a word, it means what I want it to'. Relying on
context is not necessarily helpful. For example, what do you mean by a
negative impedance? Is it where the reactive part is negative, or where the
resistance part is negative? Yet both meanings have been used, occasionally
in the same article, but the results are very different.
Part of the problem is the growing tendency to apparently not learn English.
If you wish to arbitrarily redefine the meaning of words, fine. It will make
communication difficult, however. After all, what 'bandwidth' is required to
send a message? If we use the 'e-mail context' then I need a larger
bandwidth to send a large e-mail message over a given system at a given rate
than for a small e-mail. But from the point of view of the requirements of
the bandwidth (3dB) of the wire or radio link that does the actual hardware
carrying, length of message at a given transmission rate is meaningless. It
makes a comms system pretty hard to define, especially as what we are really
talking about is channel occupancy.
So what 'bandwidth' is needed for an 10kbyte e-mail containing 4kbyte excess
material ('spam' - although I always think of that as a product of the
Hormel Meat company) transmitted over a radio system using GMSK at
270kbits/sec with an (occupied) bandwidth of 270kHz and a (necessary)
bandwidth of 180kHz in system with (channel) bandwidth 200kHz? If I remove
'occupied', 'necessary' and 'channel' from that sentence, it becomes
meaningless, and at least 'bandwidth' here has the same units. Perhaps one
can work it out from the context?
73
Peter G3RZP
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampsfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|