|
|
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
Chris Brown wrote: It's entirely unclear why you think this usage has "almost certainly been destroyed beyond hope of recovery". If a cricket-nerd uses it, it will be obvious from context which version they are talking about, hence there is to be no confusion. Do you really think that, even in the nerdiest of cricket-nerd circles, anyone can ever again use that word without everyone who hears him thinking of the "new" meaning? Well, cricketeers have for a very long time used the very common everyday word "silly" in a specialised, technical sense. Yet, it would seem that nobody who has ever been within four foot of a cricket bat, believes that the silly mid-off position is any more inherently stupid than plain old mid-off. With "google" there wouldn't be a theoretical chans to confuse the everyday sense with the technical one. So why would you think cricketeers would stop using it? Jan B=F6hme |
In article .com, Jan
Böhme writes Well, cricketeers have for a very long time used the very common everyday word "silly" in a specialised, technical sense. Yet, it would seem that nobody who has ever been within four foot of a cricket bat, believes that the silly mid-off position is any more inherently stupid than plain old mid-off. In the days before head protectors and boxes became universal, I think anyone fielding at silly mid-off, or silly mid-on, or silly point, would know exactly why the distinction was made. David -- David Littlewood |
Jan B=F6hme wrote: Jeremy Nixon wrote: Chris Brown wrote: It's entirely unclear why you think this usage has "almost certainly been destroyed beyond hope of recovery". If a cricket-nerd uses it, it will be obvious from context which version they are talking about, hence there is to be no confusion. Do you really think that, even in the nerdiest of cricket-nerd circles, anyone can ever again use that word without everyone who hears him thinking of the "new" meaning? Well, cricketeers have for a very long time used the very common everyday word "silly" in a specialised, technical sense. Yet, it would seem that nobody who has ever been within four foot of a cricket bat, believes that the silly mid-off position is any more inherently stupid than plain old mid-off. With "google" there wouldn't be a theoretical chans to confuse the everyday sense with the technical one. So why would you think cricketeers would stop using it? =20 Jan B=F6hme Cricketers even :) - Siddhartha |
According to Floyd Davidson :
"Peter" wrote: Amateur radio operators often use "c.w." as a kind of informal short form for radiotelegraphy. It isn't what it actually means. [ ... ] Here is the technical definition of "continious wave", according to the FTC 1037C Standards, available at http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/fs-1037c.htm continuous wave (cw): A wave of constant amplitude and constant frequency. Clearly it means a transmission that is neither amplitude, frequency, nor phase modulated. Any such modulation necessarily must cause a discontinuity in the wave. The only thing you can do is turn it on and off... which is called radio telegraphy! Well ... to *my* mind, even keying (turning on and off) is a form of amplitude modulation -- a rather extreme one at 100% modulation. And it is certainly causing a discontinuity in the wave. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
|
Jan Böhme wrote:
With "google" there wouldn't be a theoretical chans to confuse the everyday sense with the technical one. So why would you think cricketeers would stop using it? I thought the word in cricket was "googlie". |
no_name wrote:
Jan B=F6hme wrote: With "google" there wouldn't be a theoretical chans to confuse the everyday sense with the technical one. So why would you think cricketeers would stop using it? I thought the word in cricket was "googlie". That is the cricket term. I was puzzled as to what other use the word "google" has. The website is Google and the cricketer bowls a googlie. |
|
(DoN. Nichols) wrote:
According to Floyd Davidson : Here is the technical definition of "continious wave", according to the FTC 1037C Standards, available at http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/fs-1037c.htm continuous wave (cw): A wave of constant amplitude and constant frequency. Clearly it means a transmission that is neither amplitude, frequency, nor phase modulated. Any such modulation necessarily must cause a discontinuity in the wave. The only thing you can do is turn it on and off... which is called radio telegraphy! Well ... to *my* mind, even keying (turning on and off) is a form of amplitude modulation -- a rather extreme one at 100% modulation. Except that it is *not*. And it is certainly causing a discontinuity in the wave. If the wave is *not there*, it just doesn't exist and has no characteristics. When it is there, it is not being modulated. Turning it on and off may well produce some modulation effects, but that "modulation" is not being used to pass information, and in fact is a form of distortion that actually interferes with the information rather than enabling it. Of course when we get down to practical implementations, in almost all cases we do have to treat c.w. as if it a modulation, mostly in order to "shape" the distortion products in ways to reduce the effects. While the difference may not be obvious even at typical c.w. speeds, and might be very hard to see at higher speeds... think about such things as the very slow speeds often used for such things as the original moon bounce work, or for breaking path distance records at microwave frequencies. Circumstances where a "dash" might be 10 or 20 seconds in length. -- FloydL. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com