[NCLUG] AUP, DHCP, and AT&T

[Michael Dwyer]

> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Michael Dwyer wrote:
> > Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:39:49PM -0700, Matt Pujol wrote:
> > > > At risk of starting a meaningless thread on units designation, I have to
> > > > ask - is it appropriate to use a lower-case k to denote kilo (1000) or and
> > > > upper-case K?
> > >
> > > yes.  upper case K is named for Lord Kelvin and denotes temperature in
> > > the SI units.
> >
> > *Lord* Kelvin?  I didn't vote for him!  :P
> >
> > Actually, I have heard some people trying to pass of the idea that
> >
> >  k == 1000
> >  K == 1024
> >
> > I'm not sure I buy it.  It all reeks of lying about hard drive specs. :)
> Brian Stanback wrote:
> 
> What is the "proper" measurement? 1000? or 1024?

Well, see, that's where it gets difficult.  Computers things are almost
always in powers of 2.  So, you always count them in powers of two. 
640k, eg instead of rounding that to a nice clean 700. But us humans
counts things in tens.  Prolly cuz of all these fingers we have.

1024 = 2^10
1000 = 10^3

Its one of those stupid things where a KILO is different depending on
which base you are in.  Not unlike those screwy British people who seem
to think a billion is a whole lot bigger than it really is.  :)

That is, there isn't, unfortunatly, a distinction.  1.44k disks hold
1474560 bytes.  But $1.44k is $1,440 -- it is all context, I'm afraid.  

-mdwyer - Brings Tea to British 4th of July parties. :)