I think he's made some unfortunate mistakes with his language and use of units:
"we could transfer 900 Mbit for a half of a second and another 100 Mbit for the other half of that second. How much data was transferred during that second? The answer is 1 Gbit per second."
"for" implies multiplication, i.e. 2Mbit/s for 3s transfers 6Mbit in total, 2Mbit/s * 3s = 6Mbit. The phrase "900Mbit for half a second" should probably read "900Mbit in half a second", giving 1.8Gbit/s (and thus supporting the point of the article).
"The answer is [not] 1Gbit per second", it is 1Gbit. It is a measure of data, not transfer rate.
He makes a good point though, averaging may mask important details.
It's ambiguous and either interpretation holds. '900 Mbit for half a second' is meaningless and requires correction. Either for -> in or Mbit -> Mbit/s.
Comments
I think he's made some unfortunate mistakes with his language and use of units:
"we could transfer 900 Mbit for a half of a second and another 100 Mbit for the other half of that second. How much data was transferred during that second? The answer is 1 Gbit per second."
"for" implies multiplication, i.e. 2Mbit/s for 3s transfers 6Mbit in total, 2Mbit/s * 3s = 6Mbit. The phrase "900Mbit for half a second" should probably read "900Mbit in half a second", giving 1.8Gbit/s (and thus supporting the point of the article).
"The answer is [not] 1Gbit per second", it is 1Gbit. It is a measure of data, not transfer rate.
He makes a good point though, averaging may mask important details.
It's ambiguous and either interpretation holds. '900 Mbit for half a second' is meaningless and requires correction. Either for -> in or Mbit -> Mbit/s.