If only I could lay claim to such cleverness.
Oh, I got the joke. I still felt like injecting some facts.
I know your trolling, but here's the actual history behind the name.
Kids these days!
Now where's that naked, petrified Natalie Portman with the goatse link?
My employer produces a compiler tool chain for its products. Its release notes contain two major things:
1. A list of major customer visible changes.
2. A list of defects fixed
The first represents our internal development efforts. It's written in terms of the actual features, how they affect our users, and how the users ought to use them. They are not written in terms of the series of commits that made the features happen. That would just be pointless.
The second represents the defects fixed in this (and recent) releases, as pulled from the bug tracking system. If a customer filed a bug and we fixed that bug, that bug number and a brief description of the bug are in the release notes. Again, this is not tied to a commit stream that addressed the bug, but rather to defect reports that were closed by the release. Most of these defects come from external customers, but not all.
What's not in there? All the internal churn that got us from point A to point B. We distill it down to what the externally meaningful changes are.
Disclaimer: I am not on the team that produces the tool chain I described. I'm just a happy, internal customer of said tool-chain.
You know, some of us remember driving cars that didn't have airbags, antilock brakes, traction control, rear view cameras, auto felch, auto transmission, etc.
I was following you until I got to auto felch...
You know, this started off with a one liner, and then you brought Gene Ray into this as almost a pseudo-Godwin. It's clear you feel strongly about begging the question, so beg away.
Got me there on the punctuation inside/outside the quotes. My fingers trip me up on that one, as I'm a programmer. In most programs, you want the punctuation outside, and in most typeset environments, you want it inside. Mea culpa and big whup.
I'm personally not all that much of a prescriptivist. For example, I think the rules around "whom" and "comprise" were invented to give certain anal retentive sorts their own perverse set of jollies. I'm a big fan of the singular they as well. And sure, many style guides likely have a problem with singular they.
My point isn't that I live and die by style guides because I consider them the be-all and end-all of language. My point is that nobody reputable stands up for Gene Ray, so comparing my observation of misused English to Gene's bizarro rants is not a valid comparison. Rather, it smacks of a straw man argument bordering on an ad hominem attack.
In contrast, you can find many, many reputable sources that stand up for the fact that "beg the question" does not mean "raise the question," just as "irregardless" has never been a valid English word. (Some begrudginly do recognize the common misuse of the phrase in modern English.) Show me someone, anyone reputable backing up Gene Ray. Even if you disagree with all of those resources, you can do so from a different standpoint than "You're entitled to your position just as Gene Ray is." (I realize that wasn't your argument, but it is the main thing I was objecting to.)
If all you have to do to shut down someone you disagree with is compare their opinions to Gene Ray's absurd rants, well then, arguments can be very short indeed. Do we need a new variant of Godwin's Law here?
Comparing me to Gene Ray is a "nice knock-down argument"? You have some mighty low standards. I don't think anyone reputable has gone in print defending Gene, but just about any style guide you can point to that mentions "beg the question" tells you not to use it to mean "raise the question."
But, thanks for playing.
English is not context-free. Begging the question, for example, is an expression with multiple meanings, the correct one of which must be deduced from said context.
Sure, but that's irrelevant. That's how most people make sense of other people who are otherwise not making sense. "Begging the question" has never (correctly) meant "raising the question." Next you'll tell me "I could care less" means "I couldn't care less." Oh, "but context!" is a cheap, meaningless argument.
But hey, feel free to take it up with any of these other folks:
* Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. If you misuse it in court, I'd love to see you say "But context, your Honor! And for my next argument, I'm going argue about what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
* Zoe Triska: "In the long run, misusing phrases like 'begging the question' doesn't make you sound smarter. It makes you sound dumber."
* The New York Times, which felt the need to come clean on their occasional abuses of the phrase.
Where were we? Oh yeah, context. Sure, from the context surrounding the phrase, everyone will be able to figure out what you meant. And a good fraction of them will know you're using it incorrectly and think less of you for it. As Zoe said above "In the long run
Knock yourself out. I could of gone on irregardless, but I could care less. I won't wait with baited breath for your reply, because for all intensive purposes I'm done. (Context: See how dumb misused English sounds?)
Back to the topic at hand:
But even if you overcame that problem, the light would still be bouncing between the walls of the core, and thus traveling a longer distance than the mere length of the fiber.
That's true, especially for multi-mode fiber. For single mode fiber, the fiber plus cladding act more like a wave guide, because the diameter of the fiber is small relative to the wavelength of the light.
I don't claim to be an expert though. I've just been reading up online.
In any case, the mere fact you have to bend the fiber optics at all implies the light contained therein isn't going in a straight line between repeaters.