Henry Spencer (att!chinet!mcdchg!clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU)
31 Oct 88 21:52:28 GMT
In article <In article <3575@phri.UUCP> In article <3575@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
> Given that the quantity is bogosity, and the universe in which this
>quantity exists is the swamp, it seems that "the bog" is the obvious name for
>the unit of measure...
Best suggestion I've heard so far. There have been a few truly interesting
ones by private mail, but the better ones are unprintable. (Among the
also-rans are the "Berkeley", the "ATTIS", and the "Sun".) The "Millstone"
is already spoken for, alas: it's the unit of gateway throughput! :-)
>Next question; do we define a fixed goodness-to-badness
>continium with 1 bog being totaly bogus (thus, a 10 decibog box would be 90%
>in compliance with the specs) or do we define an open-ended scale, on the
>assumption that no matter how bad something is, somebody will always manage
>to come along with something worse?
"Decibog" sounds clumsy. I'd propose that the main scale runs from 0 to 10
bog, with higher (and negative) ratings reserved for exceptional cases.
-- The dream *IS* alive... | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology but not at NASA. |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:43:57 GMT