I once liked to think of irrelevant, uninteresting or unwanted information as "noise" in language media / communications media.. But then people started using the term signal-to-noise ratio and I thought the analogy was taken too far. Really if it is information that is impertinent, just call it impertinent. If it has to do with the level of background noise, say level of background noise. I don't like it when metaphors or analogies are used merely to save time. Like instead of explaining the intricacies of the Trinitarian concept of God in Catholic doctrine, you use an analogy like a three-leaved clover.. it can be pretty even cute, but I find such time-saving shortcut metaphors to be awfully "noisy" themselves.. So I try to ignore it.. and when I'm not listening,I fall into silent contemplation again..
See Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_to_noise_ratio
"Signal-to-noise ratio (often abbreviated SNR or S/N) is a measure used in science and engineering to quantify how much a signal has been corrupted by noise. It is defined as the ratio of signal power to the noise power corrupting the signal. A ratio higher than 1:1 indicates more signal than noise. While SNR is commonly quoted for electrical signals, it can be applied to any form of signal (such as isotope levels in an ice core or biochemical signaling between cells).
In less technical terms, signal-to-noise ratio compares the level of a desired signal (such as music) to the level of background noise. The higher the ratio, the less obtrusive the background noise is.
"Signal-to-noise ratio" is sometimes used informally to refer to the ratio of useful information to false or irrelevant data in a conversation or exchange. For example, in online discussion forums and other online communities, off-topic posts and spam are regarded as "noise" that interferes with the "signal" of appropriate discussion." http://chum.ly/n/286a7f
No comments:
Post a Comment