Le vendredi 15 juin 2007 à 13:46 -0400, Phillip Susi a écrit : > Different disciplines often ascribe different meanings to the same > words, so there is no reason why the prefix "Kilo" can not mean 1024 in > the context of computer science, so please stop complaining about that. You cannot always infer a unit from the context. Asking for inaccuracy for such fallacious reasons sounds completely insane, from a scientific PoV. > You should just learn that in this context, that is what it means. > Always has and always will. Sorry, it hasn't always been like this. And there is even less reason for things to *remain* like this. The only reason that was invoked so far is laziness. > Because we needed a name, and Kilo is a good one to use. There is no > rule that says you can't use the word for a different meaning in a > different context. Do you need a rule not to do something stupid? > And before computers were invented the word mouse always referred to a > small hairy rodent. I don't see you complaining that it can also refer > to the computer pointing device on your desk. When someone says they > caught a mouse or they clicked with their mouse, you can easily infer > which one they mean. If you want comparisons, find suitable ones; you're talking about 1024 being close to 1000. Pi is close to 3, so we can say 3 instead of Pi as well. When told the area of a circle is 3r², you'll be able to infer that in this context, 3 means Pi. > The context clearly indicates the meaning is 1024. When referring to > bytes that context uses 1024. Not always. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=