On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 15:22 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote: > So you still claim the actual reason those same terms are used in > different contexts is stupid? > Kilo, Mega, etc were chosen for use to represent the binary value > closest to the same decimal values. > > I think you should argue with the standards community from several > decades ago instead of ranting at those of us who understand why and > use the values appropriately. A kilobyte packet contains 1024 bytes. > A kilogram contains 1000 grams. That is as close as can be gotten to > the same quantities when using different mathematical systems (binary > vs decimal). One thousand is one thousand, no matter what base number system you use. Changing systems doens't mean that you can reuse a multiplier for a different value. > Are you also saying the the English pound (a monetary value) should > not ever be used since there is another English pound (a weight > value)?? That's a "name" not a multiplier prefix with a fixed purpose. Naming something the same because it's close is a WEAK excuse. Perhaps you'd like to further your arguement that a kilogram could have a different use of kilo from a kilometre, and a kilovolt, and so on. Because that is what you're doing. > If you do not understand the differences in the mathematical numbering > systems, then educate yourself. If you do, then quit complaining. > This rant seems based on an inability to understand usage of similar > terms in different contexts, _and_ is way outside the norm for this > list. It should be ended here. The "rant", as you put it, is from people who don't understand the concept of a standard, and want to redefine something at every step of the way to have a different purpose depending on the current context. We have standards so that some "thing" *always* means the same thing, it's a pity that people working with computers just do NOT understand that concept. I have been using computers for some twenty years, before "personal computers" were even a reality. I'm well aware of the differences, and the mis-uses. I'm more than well aware that the *misuse* of SI units for some other purpose has caused innumerable problems. There is no "standard" 1024 byte kilobyte, it's a figment of the imagination that it's a "standard". Right from the beginning kB has been used to represent 1024 *AND* 1000 bytes, i.e. it's a completely unreliable and useless term. There is, however, a "standard", and using the precise meaning of the word "standard", that "k" is the abbreviation for "kilo", which means "one thousand". Don't argue nonsense with me that it's okay to pervert a standard to suit your own needs, there's a plethora of examples that shows just how stupid and wrong it is. If you can't fit your need for something into a standard, then use something else entirely. -- Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
