K3b sees 4.7GB DVD+R as 4.4 GB
mike.mccarty at sbcglobal.net
Tue Jan 17 08:53:30 UTC 2006
Kenny Gow wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
>> Please, allow each group its own jargon.
> Well, I guess you just don't get it. Some of us are members of many
I do "get" it. You are some sort of a control freak, and think
that everyone has to speak the way you do, and that every
term has to have one and only one use and meaning. Except for
the ones that you chose to use in different ways yourself.
How many different uses do you make of the term "field"?
Is the ring of integers modulo a prime a field? Is the
electromagnetic field a field? How about the Dirac field?
How about a soccer field? Is Hilbert space also a field?
> different groups. Let me put it in historical context for you:
Let me put *you* into historical context. I first encountered
these terms used in this way (as powers of two) in 1969 or
thereabouts, when I was programming an IBM 1401 computer in
machine language. So they are not "johnny come latelies".
Yes, the SI was developed in 1960, so perhaps they were
borrowed in a sense. But I might point out that "megacycle"
was in use in about 1920 or so. So the term "mega" predates
SI. So one might just as well complain that SI hijacked
previously used terms as well. I found that the SI also did
two other things which I find rather objectionable: They
"took away" the "cps" as a unit, and substituted the ugly
and non-descriptive "Hertz", and then have made the "Kelvin"
as opposed to "degree Kelvin" as a unit. Of course, we don't
have the corresponding "Fahrenheit" as a unit. I suppose that
this almost makes sense, as the kelvin temperature scale is
actually a ratiometric scale.
> from http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
> Historical context*
> Once upon a time, computer professionals noticed that 210 was very
> nearly equal to 1000 and started using the SI prefix "kilo" to mean
I suppose you think that I am not aware of this. I've been active in
electronics for quite some time, having started construction of
various devices in about 1965 or so. So I am quite well acquainted
with these prefices. The patronizing tone of this particular quote
is rather off-putting, don't you think?
> Faced with this reality, the IEEE Standards Board decided that IEEE
> standards will use the conventional, internationally adopted,
> definitions of the SI prefixes. Mega will mean 1 000 000, except that
> the base-two definition may be used (if such usage is explicitly pointed
> out on a case-by-case basis) until such time that prefixes for binary
> multiples are adopted by an appropriate standards body.
I'll point out here that what *may* be used by people is not up
to standards bodies to determine.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
More information about the users