Re: DMZ, defined.

[Adam Shostack <adam () homeport org>]

On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 10:47:20AM -0500, David LeBlanc wrote:

| If it isn't open to debate, then why would people STILL be arguing about it
| here?  You apparently have not studied much of the history of language.  I

Because MJR is being insufficiently strict in his moderation role. :)

| >Terms, to be useful, have meanings. 
| 
| Yes, and usually several of them.  It is a rare entry in Webster's that
| doesn't have > 1 definition, and many words have several different, but
| related meanings.  That's one of the wonderful things about standards - so
| many to choose from!


        Terms having several meanings is a detriment to the
advancement of science.  Hydrogen means exactly one thing; an atom
with one proton, and one electron.  I think a hydrogen ion is missing
its electron; when I studied chemistry, I'd be sure of it.

        If I had to specify that by hydrogen, I didn't mean the class
of atonms and ions with less than 4 protons, with a balanced charge,
etc, etc, it would be much harder to work.

        As the engineering community, we have a duty to define terms
rigorously; your example of the poor definition of FW is an excellent
one.  If we had a standard that we could agree to, then we wouldn't
have the argument.  I'm perfectly willing to hand my proxy (ahem) to
Steve, if he's willing to be the language police and offer us a
glossary.  I may not agree with his definitions, but we can argue ad
infinitum to little effect, and so, for progress, I'll abstain.

Adam



-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
                                                       -Hume