K3b sees 4.7GB DVD+R as 4.4 GB

[Tim]

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.