> On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Willem Ferguson > <willemfergu...@zoology.up.ac.za> wrote: > > On 18/07/2017 19:14, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> Absolutely *everybody* knows what we mean by SAC rate. And the ones >> that are offended by our use of standard terminology can be offended. >> >> It's their problem, not ours. Let's not take on their mental baggage. >> >> Linus >> > Part of this argument is just me and who I am. I am a scientist and for > effective communication, terminology is critical. Just look how he word > "awesome" has totally lost its meaning in popular language: it can mean > almost anything. My students have lost the meaning of the word "variation" or > the verb "vary": they would say that men vary from women, not that men differ > from women, so the word "variation" has lost its technical meaning. In > addition, I was trained that each number one uses has an associated unit. To > say that respiratory minute volume is measured in bar is just nonsensical. > And we use this common-day terminology in situations where people can get > hurt by miscommunication or misperception. > > But clearly I am far in the minority, so I will shut my mouth on this issue.
I think you actually agree with Linus and me - mostly. We all bemoan the confusion in terminology. The one thing we disagree about is whether there is value in trying to find a term different from SAC that people will grasp. Remember, we always show the unit (l/min or cuft/min), so it's clear that SAC isn't a pressure drop. /D _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
