Eh.

You speak in terms you understand.  If you know your audience well and
you want to communicate at their level, then it's often acceptable to
use common technical terms for physical or mental processes.  But it can
be very easy to use a term incorrectly, since one could pull several
analogies from one technical term.

I read an article geared toward computer users about intelligence, which
indicated that particularily intelligent people would have one thread
solving the problem while another higher level thread monitored it so
they could move to another solution if the current process wasn't
working out.  Now how many people think in terms of threads, as opposed
to a more common phrase like "train of thought"?  Computer scientists
and programmers, that's who.

The word 'interface' is a bad choice where 'discuss' might fit /because/
of the audience he's speaking to.  An interface often has very little to
do with the actual data moving along it.  The interface is established -
he sent a message and can receive a reply along it.  Right now he's
asking for another person to discuss some issues with him.  An interface
can describe a physical thing - it's a noun.  Using it as a verb grates
against technical people.

He might have said, "I'd like to initiate a session..." but this would
be more akin to a single real-time two-way communication such as a phone
call.  I can't think of a good technical parallel for, "I'd like to
start a two-way, high-latency, packet-based, question and response
discussion in an open forum..."

"Could someone please RX my TX, and TX the answer?  THX! 76!"

-Adam

cdb wrote:

>I must be old, as I have an abhorrence for what I see as deliberate
>misuse of English in an attempt to sound either important or
>politically correct.
>
>I have just answered someone on another board who would like to
>'interface with someone' , concerning Pic microcontrollers.
>
>Part of my flippant reply was;
>
>"If this wasn't a microcontroller would you still interface with
>someone, or would you just want to talk to them instead?"
>
>shaking head sadly
>
>Colin
>--
>cdb, cdb@barnard.name on 31/03/2002
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
>ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.
>
>
>
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.