First, I want to say once again that for annoying neologisms, the computer industry seems to be unsurpassed. There are simply no worse offenders against the English language than the advertisers and managers of this industry. I excuse the programmers themselves as, when allowed to name programs themselves, they seem disinclined to invent stupid new words and simply fall back upon geeky, obscure and inappropriate names, such as naming an operating system "ygsdrasil" or a monitoring program "splunk". Most programmers seem to enjoy a geek's fondness of obscure mythology, science fiction, fantasy and a few silly made up nonsense words. That is why we have "spam", after all, because of Monty Python and their geeky fans. I am amazed there is no phenomenon dubbed "lemon curry".
The managers are another matter. They have invented words such as "architecting" and enjoy using the longest possible term, such as "utilization" rather than "use", and love stringing together long chains of needlessly lengthy words such as "deployment", "scalable", and so on. Part of this is marketing, making up words to impress corporate buyers, and part is the technical love of jargon, especially among middle managers, as they are usually less tech-savvy, and so, while intimidated by the real programmers and administrators, they can feel superior to the laymen by using these technical pseudo-terms.
And finally, there is the one other tendency which seems to characterize our present computer industry, the desire to make up pointless distinctions, or to create single words to describe things that could easily be described by two or three more simple, shorter words. For example, a supervisor which manages other supervisors would normally be called "a supervisor". If we needed to point out that this supervisor was at some higher level, we would say, in any other context, "a higher level supervisor" or something similar. But that homely description is not flashy enough for computer marketer, and thus we have the new term "hypervisor". Apparently, this abomination is specific to one vendor, and I hope it remains unique to their products, but I fear, since it is a major player in the industry, we will be seeing this idiocy more frequently in the future.
The second discovery which managed to annoy me was a smoking policy established by a large university. In this policy they banned not just smoking tobacco but "inhaling any substance by any means". As the following sentences make clear, this was intended to ban smoking of herbal or other non-tobacco cigarettes, as well as prohibiting those electronic cigarettes*. However, if one takes this literally, it actually makes breathing against the rules. After all, what is breathing, but inhaling a substance?
All of which makes me ask, does anyone think about what they write or say any longer? Though, I suppose my first point shows they do, but they think abut how cool and hip things sound, and not how much sense it makes.
Quite a shame.
* As I have pointed out repeatedly ("Results Do Not Matter", "If They Were Serious", "Addicts?", "Something to Consider", "The Truth", "A Quick Thought", "Twisted Priorities", "Consumer Protection"), the policies adopted to "prevent exposure to second hand smoke" show this is a moral crusade against smokers and not an effort to "prevent exposure". (I do not believe second hand smoke is as dangerous as many claim, and there is evidence that suggests the risk is wildly exaggerated, but for now I will concede their point for sake of argument.) If second hand smoke is the problem, then why ban electronic cigarettes which emit nothing but steam and a small amount of flavoring and nicotine? There is no known carcinogen in them to expose others. Yet they too are banned in a policy supposedly intended to protect against second hand smoke. (For that matter, why outlaw enclosed indoor smoking areas, which contain smoke effectively, and instead force smokers outside where they gather near doorways and blow smoke on those entering buildings? Is it not to inconvenience and thus punish smokers? It certainly increases rather than decreases exposure to second hand smoke.) Once again, the anti-smoking crusade shows it is not about health concerns, and instead is about forcing everyone to subscribe to the same code of behavior. That is, the common modern goal of saving us from ourselves, telling the ignorant rubes what it is right and proper to believe. (Cf "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences", "You've Come a Long Way, Baby!", "Not Quite True", "Harming Society", "In Loco Parentis", "Hard Cases Make Bad Law")