Languages change. Jargon changes even more.

I use to go around correcting everyone that said "baud rate" because baud is a rate and it is like saying "rate rate." Finally one too many people said "baud rate" and it "poofed" into existence. "Baud rate" is now a meaningful term in the IT industry (if not in engineering).

"Unlimited" appears to have become a part of our industry. As now used it may not have the literal meaning of yesterday but it does have a meaning. It is pervasive. It is abundantly used. It does not appear to be going away no matter how much we jump up and down and bash those that use it. It is actually a new word that happens to be pronounced and spelled like the old word we know.

Perhaps we should define and describe this meaning and seek to enlighten others (as the leaders in hosting that we aspire to be). This description should reflect the actual way the term is used and not our insistence upon a particular meaning. "Unlimited" may not actually have a single meaning. It may actually be rare for a word to have a universal meaning. There even seems to be some presidential controversy over the meaning of "is."

We accept other words that appear contradictory. Consider the software-related term "infinite loop." The term is used and accepted. However, there has never been an "infinite loop." Someone will shut down the computer long before that happens. And someone will regulate your bandwidth long before you achieve unlimited hits. And I know of no campaign to change "infinite loop" to "cyclic processing that executes for a very long time if allowed to." (of course I don't think anyone was ever taken advantage of by the use of "infinite loop" either)

And, then there is "Spam!"

Of course it is all IMHO.

Gary

Interesting and well-written post Gary. Reminds me of a word we hear all the time and is almost always misused: hacker. A hacker is someone who trys to "customize" (shall we say) the software in *their own* computer. Someone who tries to break into other people's computers is a cracker. But most people--including the mainstream media--use hacker as the universal term to describe someone breaking into a computer system.

As far as the word "unlimited" goes: Some hosting providers list the limits to their hosting plans up front in the advertising, and some bury the limits in the TOS/AUP. Those that bury the limits to their hosting plans are the ones that are using the "U" word in their advertising. The thing that burns me about the word unlimited (speaking as a hosting provider) is that I have to compete with it. Many people unknowingly think that unlimited bandwidth is better than (say) a set limit of 5 gigabytes of bandwidth. I chalk this up to the fact that many people don't bother reading the AUP/TOS before they sign up (and with all the jargon in the typical TOS, who can blame them :) ).

"Hacker" goes even further back and typically means someone who's really good with technology (especially programming). Nothing illegal or elicet about it. It probably came about because serious technology buffs tend to code or build first, design or analyze later. Hackers we well know from producing good and creative stuff, albeit often in an unorganized or unstructured way. Guess it's just the creative mind at work.

For "unlimited" I agree IH. It's hard to compete with hosts who say unlimited, especially for things like bandwidth, space and POP3's. The fact that most hsoting customers don't need anything even close to unlimited just makes it worse. They feel they're getting more when they really aren't.

As to "spam", the unwritten rule is that if you get a message you didn't like or want that's spam. No one can really define exactly what spam is. It's like porn - ask 10 people and you'll get 10 different answers. No one knows how to quantify it but everyone knows when they see it. That's what really scares me about some of these Federal anti-spam laws that are trying to be passed. With no clear quantifiable definition it's a blank check to get sued or put out of business.

Actually, spam can be defined accurately. The problem is that many people use the term inappropriately as a catch all phrase to describe anything they don't like, as you did.

The things that bother me about all proposed anti spam legislation is giving spammers a first shot if they include removal instructions and possibly relegating authority to the FTC to stop them. Legitimate marketers estimate that by 2005, we will all get about 6500 pieces of spam a month. That's a lot of "take me off your list" replies to make, even if they could be trusted to do so. They haven't been trustworthy so far, and don't expect that to change.

If you think the FTC would stop them, try to get them to stop a junk faxer. They've had dominion over that since 1973 and are as useful as udders on a bull.

Originally posted by Duster
Actually, spam can be defined accurately. The problem is that many people use the term inappropriately as a catch all phrase to describe anything they don't like, as you did.

Spam
A trademark used for a canned meat product consisting primarily of chopped pork pressed into a loaf.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
Copyright © 1996, 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Spam
Function: noun
Etymology: from a skit on the British television series Monty Python's Flying Circus in which chanting of the word Spam (trademark for a canned meat product) overrides the other dialogue
Date: 1994
: unsolicited usually commercial E-mail sent to a large number of addresses

Source: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

It can be defined easily but, when consulting sources for things like the definitions of words, one has to consider the authority that is reporting the definition.

I know you quote a certain website, although I am unsure what makes them the absolute authority of the meaning. To me, it's stinky canned meat. :)

It's not that they are the authority (there is no single one), it's that they define it accurately, as per long accepted definitions also found at n.a.n.a.e. and other anti-spam sites of renown. They even go on to explain why the incomplete definitions found at some other locations are wrong, and have the Monty Python skit that gave spam its name.

I've seen that skit myself.

Even CAUCE admits that they are trying to stop the commercial spam (which accounts for a major share of it) as they don't want to be bothered reconciling with the First Amendment for the non-commercail spam, like the religious spam I've gotten in the past (including earlier this week) or the spam last year from a politician seeking re-election.

Your quote of "Date: 1994
: unsolicited usually commercial E-mail sent to a large number of addresses" is just another way of saying unsolicited bulk e-mail, which is how they define it.

I'm actually writing a proposal to send to legislators using some wording drawn from previous proposals since all present and previous federal proposals, and some enacted into state laws (like California's useless one) would do nothing to curb spam. You have to spell it out for legislators since they are idiots, much like spammers themselves.

what about "bandwidth"? means something different now than
the first time I was taught about it.

I think the source of that confusion comes from sites offering '2 gigabytes of bandwidth' when they mean data transfer.

Companies like http://hispeed.com are still using unlimited, when in actuality, when they use to be Interspeed Networks, customers were limited to 12 gig of bandwidth a month

Projo's general point of a descriptive approach to "hostspeak" is well-taken: Words and terms do of course "poof" into existence in singularly new forms ("software") or in aggregated ones ("hardware"). Even as we consult assorted dictionaries to check the meanings of words, we're aware (or ought to be, at least) that those very definitions are the results of studies into usage.

Put another way, how and when does description become prescription (assuming that it does)?

(Then again, the "reasonable person" test might just as well be applied to terms like "unlimited," in much the same way as the promise of a "permanent" job.)

Side note to projo: Your mention of infinite loops reminded me immediately of "On the Seeming Paradox of Mechanical Creativity" from Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas. (I am not, by any stretch of imagination, an expert on the halting problem and of AI in general, however dated--just an interested bystander.)

As far as unlimited is concerned, I use the word on my web site, and I am planning to remove it, because "free unlimited email tech support" is limiting, it can only be for email and if it's 'free' why do i need to say unlimited. I am currently working to develop a much better web site and when it rolls out, unlimited will be gone.

Even services that do offer 'unlimited' services have a limit, for instance, pop3 accounts are limited to how many you can fit in the space provided, one day or another, the list is going to get so big it busts your account open.

One problem with accepting improper usage is that words lose their meaning and value in transmitting thoughts. Look at simple words corrupted by the media like heroes and miracles. Sports figures are not heroes, they are idols, most are certainly not role models. Doing good deeds does not make one an "everyday hero", it makes someone a better person. Fire fighters are everyday heroes, not Scout leaders and other people who do good deeds (and I've been a Scoutmaster).

If a plane crashes into an apartment building where no one was home so no residents are killed, it is not a miracle, just a stroke of good luck for them (still tough luck for the pilot).

Through misuse, and acceptance of misuse, our language is losing its value as a tool for communication. If one wants to talk about a real hero, or a real miracle, it now is necessary to define it so as not to be confused with the misuse of the term.

The media are as much to blame as anyone, perhaps more so because of their broad target area and broadcasting, and we should all rebel against the corruption of our language.

In 1984, Erich Fromm tendered the idea of controlling people by eliminating words that dealt with topics undesired by the state. The idea was that if they had no words to think it, they couldn't do it.

What we are doing is eliminating the meaning of words so that we can't use them to communicate effectively.