On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:55:27 Carl Sorenson wrote: >Marcus, >Apparently you can't see that: >1) I addressed two people, you and Euric,
? Of course I could. Fine, you were 'talking' to two guys, then what? I'm not sure I follow why you're mentioning this. >2) You still see this in terms of right and wrong, as I said, ? But, Carl, 'right and wrong' does NOT **necessarily** have to do with morals, my friend! That was my whole point. For instance, if you're doing some algebra to find some solution to a system of equations and you make a boo-boo somewhere, the result you'll arrive at will be 'wrong', wouldn't it? And there would be nothing 'immoral' about that, would it?! > and >3) I used the word "or" in the first paragraph, without indicating which of >the things in the list I was referring to. I'm sorry, Carl, if I misinterpreted you, please accept my sincere apologies. Perhaps it's not that clear at times to follow certain threads (and it's not necessarily the fault of who's written it!). Unfortunately the written word is not a precise tool and people can make wrong interpretations. So, if you're alluding to such an instance, please forgive me. > Obviously, since at least one of >the items in the list applied to you, the sentence was correct. > In any case, I just hope I was able to show to you that my view of 'right and wrong' does not mean I'm talking in 'moral' terms, ok? >As far as what you said about the topic, (yawn): >[begin quote] >Because the prefix kilo is *defined* to be or refer to 10 (*10* as a base!) >to the power of 3, not 2 to 10 or any power (when it comes to the other math >prefixes, like mega, giga, etc). >[end quote] > >I am trying to tell you that in some contexts, the prefix kilo is *defined* >to be 2^10. ?? But, Carl, *who* said so??? Please provide me with *authoritative sources*, please! Again, just because this is popularly/loosely referred to as such does not make it "correct" to say so! Please understand that I *am* aware of the usage and that, being a computer programmer myself, I probably would "understand" what's going on. However, *technically/rigorously* there would certainly be an issue with it. > There can be times where different groups use different >definitions for the same terminology. The people that came up with SI have >not been given authority from heaven to say that their terminology is the >only one that is "right". ? But Carl, we, 'SI people' as you put it, *put it in paper, documented it, defined it rigorously* and all, that kilo refers to 1000 (and ONLY to 1000!). Again, I call on you to show us where one can find that 'kilo' refers to 1024!!! Please?... > That would be like asking which was the correct >size of the gallon, the Imperial or the American. ? Not really! Why? Because one can find documents to attest BOTH of them, *depending on the reference you use*! Therefore, if you're talking 'gallons' you MUST provide what reference you're using to identify it unequivocally. But with kilos referring to 1024 you only have 'popular' usage as justification (again, unless you can come up with a rigorous reference to share with us and prove us wrong, ok?). > There was no correct >one--different groups used different definitions. > If you feel strongly about that, if that's the case, please provide the source. If you can identify a document coming from an authoritative body, fine, I'll have no problem conceding it. I just wanna know the source, please. >[begin quote] >However, once these are established and agreed upon, it doesn't make any >sense to "challenge" them. >[end quote] > >Well, I am challenging the use of colloquial units in the U.S., even though >they are pretty well established and agreed upon. I don't say that it is >"wrong" to use them, though. > Hmm... Ok, I see your point. But I don't recall having considered this particular situation (the fact that Americans use a crappy "system" (SIC)) as being 'wrong'!... Even though perhaps someone would have the courage to delve into that territory, and I'm not sure I'd volunteer to be that one for that at this point... ;-) Therefore, please show us a reference and you would have demonstrated your point then. >You are completely missing the point--you *are* challenging the use of kilo >and other prefixes in a way that is very well established and agreed upon by >a particular group. > ? Again, I must insist, I don't see this as 'well established' at all (that it's quite popular, yes, but that's it! I don't know of any source that has made this "official" anywhere - that I know of!). And I think that the fact that this is even being disputed in courts seems to be a strong case and clear demonstration of that. Otherwise courts would certainly dismiss that out of hand without the necessity of going any further with it, wouldn't they?! Therefore, perhaps we should wait for the court verdict to find out how... 'established' what you claim *really* is, fair? >[begin quote] >However (and here is *my* private beef with this industry) nothing would >prevent us from abandoning this practice and start building memory chips and >buses and all with nice decimal chunks of it instead! >[end quote] > >Why make addressing inefficient? > >This just shows how little you know about computer architecture. ? Excuse me?! How can you say that? Perhaps we should wait for my thread with Bill to develop further before you pass judgment on me like that. But for your info, I *do* know how computer architecture is built! I've written several programs in assembly, BASIC, COBOL, FORTRAN, C...). I only dispute that it is the ONLY POSSIBLE "efficient" way of building it! (again, unless I'm forgetting some of the basics related to this issue - it's been over 20 years since I became an "official" professional of this area, and some details may have gone into oblivion in my memory... :-S Quite possible though as I'm getting old...) > Go tell >this to a computer engineer and you will have no credibility. I'm tired of >wasting my time on this. > ? I don't think we're wasting time here at all, Carl! Please, you don't need to sound upset, ok? So far, I've been conducting this discussion with the utmost integrity. If you have sources, examples, etc, please bring it to the table and share them with us. It would be far more constructive than ending this discussion on such a tone, Carl, wouldn't you say? Anyhow, I'll await for your further input before proceeding, ok? Take care, in the meantime. Marcus PS: Absolutely no hard feelings here... :-) >Carl > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of Ma Be >Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 11:45 AM >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:28017] Moral Issue?... > > >On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:09:57 > Carl Sorenson wrote: >>Euric, you and Marcus continue to see this in terms of right and wrong, >>truth and error, or even moral goodness and badness (as in the reference to >>Hitler). >> >NO! Lest this goes "out of control", again, NO, I didn't mean to tie this >to *moral* issues AT ALL, my dear friend Carl! Please understand that when >it comes to *scientific issues* there IS indeed at times issues that deal >with 'right vs. wrong', but that these have NOTHING to do with morals. > >True, a lot of things in math, for instance, are a result of the adoption of >*conventions* (well said in this regard, BTW). However, once these are >established and agreed upon, it doesn't make any sense to "challenge" them. > >Please allow me to give you an example: 2 + 2 is 4, right? Imagine if all >of a sudden someone would come with a new set of rules or conventions to >state that, no: A -- B :: C!!! Evidently, technically, if you rigorously >state a framework where you define 'A' to be such and such, 'B' to be such >and such, etc, there should not be a problem. But then again, why? Why >would anyone do that? It would be utterly confusing, wouldn't it? > >On the other hand, refering to '32 kilobytes' as meaning '32 768', i.e. >when what is meant is 32 x 1024 bytes, IS *wrong*! Why? Because the prefix >kilo is *defined* to be or refer to 10 (*10* as a base!) to the power of 3, >not 2 to 10 or any power (when it comes to the other math prefixes, like >mega, giga, etc). > >Just because 2 to the power of 10 *happens* to be very close to 1000, 2 to >20 close to 1000000, etc does not give anyone the authority to claim they're >the one and the same. Sorry, but they are NOT. > >>...The fact is, the use of powers of two *is* the correct way to build >memory >>structures in computers, if you accept that the simplest and cheapest way >is >>the correct one. > >I don't think anyone was arguing against that, Carl. Indeed, computers are >built around this binary framework. However (and here is *my* private beef >with this industry) nothing would prevent us from abandoning this practice >and start building memory chips and buses and all with nice decimal chunks >of it instead! > >For instance, I'd much rather see 10-bit, 100-bit buses than the current 16, >32, 64, etc... Nothing, *technically* would make such construction wrong or >flawed IMHO. It's just a pity that someone "decided" to call 8 bits a byte, >as opposed to 10 being a bite. > >(NOTE: I would be interested to know and learn why building decimal >structures with binary bases would be inefficient and why, please. Thanks) > >Evidently (and I concede that) this wouldn't help the "decimal cause", so to >speak, as 10 bits would still refer to 1024 possibilities, etc. But it >would certainly get rid of the binary mentality "at *our* level"! > >It's just a pity that it seems a little too late for that, apparently... > >... no computer engineer will misunderstand >>someone who speaks of a "32 kilobyte L1 cache". They will know that it is >>32 * 2^10 bytes. > >Carl, just because these professionals grew accustommed to linking these two >does not make it right to do so! People may be accustommed to call an otter >a ferrett, but it would not make it so, would it? (Food for thought) > >> If there is a high level of agreement, understanding, and >>usage, then it is part of language. > >Ah-ha, I see. But here it's probably fair to say that you'd be delving into >"*cultural*" territory! In this case then, true, arguments would be weak to >shoot it down, but please understand that I was not trying to touch this >aspect. I wouldn't want to get involved with the likes of clicks for >kilometers, and similar stuff. It would be fruitless. I learned and know >when not to pick certain fights... > >>... But it will not help your position to compare a nonmoral issue to a >>moral one, or to see matters of convention as matters of truth. >>... >Please see my first paragraph, please. > >Nice talking to you, Carl. Thanks for your insights. > >Cheers, my friend. > >Marcus > > >____________________________________________________________ >Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! >Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB of email storage with Lycos Mail Plus! Sign up today -- http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus
