Eduard Bloch wrote: > * Bob Proulx wrote: > > Please quote my exact words where I misused terminology. I do not see > > it. I never said GB nor GiB. I used a number. > > Yeah. A number as answer to something about "GB". Have you ever been on > the Jeopardy show?
I interpreted the question as how to reduce large hard to comprehend numbers into smaller human readable numbers. If you didn't like my answer then you can return it for a full refund of the cost paid. Except that it was addressed to another and we haven't heard if he found the hints satisfactory or not. I imagine he is rather chagrined through no fault of his by the ruckus that has been kicked up in this thread. > Following your logics means that it's ok to use "pint" for business > communication because it's a soo well defined unit and anyone > understands how much it is. Now tell that to a globally operating > company... Certainly if I am going to order a pint in a pub what I get will depend upon where the pub is located. I would hope that I would get a 20oz British pint. Not one of our smaller 16oz US pints. But when I order a pint I already know what I will get without qualification. No one in the UK calls it an "Imperial" pint. It is just "a pint". And in the US we don't call it a small "American" pint. It is again just "a pint". But in the US we know it will be 16oz. Or smaller. Of all things a Haagen Daz "pint" is down to 14oz. Ben & Jerry's says that they will stick with the full size pint. Go B&J! So actually the pint is quite well defined. The pint will be as small as they can get away making it that consumers will still buy it so as to maximize profit. I could keep debating points of your email but I will be offline for some days and so will be unable to keep up my end of it. We are only going to be able to agree to disagree. Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
