thad05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> flatfish <flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Read the thread.
>> The point isn't the traffic, it's Mark Kent's idiotic definition of
>> bandwidth.
>
> Well actually, nowdays we all tend to use the term 'bandwidth'
> incorrectly. It use to literally mean the extent of the frequency
> band being utilized. This used to have more of a direct
> relationship to data transmission speed, so people began to use
> it (incorrectly) to mean that. It is now so firmly entrenched
> in the public mind that we must admit the word has a new, extra
> meaning.
I slightly disagree. It's not used incorrectly. It has taken on a new ,
distinct, meaning. Subtle difference. The information flow cap IS
directly related to the frequency bandwidth limitations. The more ons &
offs you have per second then the higher the frequencies required in the
analogue sine waves which form the basis of that single.
>
> But just don't let me hear you kids using that kind of language
> when you are cutting across my lawn! (shakes a 10base5 vampire
> tap at the young ingrates)
>
> Later,
>
> Thad
>
--
I have defined the hundred per cent American as ninety-nine per cent an idiot.
-- George Bernard Shaw
|
|
