Unfortunately, after the first initial puppy love affair with the Internet, business has gotten much smarter about IT and tends to give it more realistic budgets for technology and man-power and expect real targets from IT that can be managed.
Actually, that was one of the problems of the dotcom boom. Investors and business were not smart, and expected unrealistic profits in a short time. There would have been more success if some of those ideas and businesses were given more time to develop. Instead, they were expected to be unreasonably profitable in the short-term. History shows us that those dotcoms that were given the time ended up being successful. Of course, some of the businesses were just duds that never should have been implemented in the first place, but there were many great ideas which had the plug pulled on them prematurely, due to stock market or investor panic.
Of course, the term "IT" is problematic here. Many dotcoms were not "IT" as such. IT is a stupidly retarded term in the first place, which is another of the problems. Just because something involves computers or the intarweb, doesn't mean it is "IT."
The "I just want it to work but not if that means I have to learn anything" crowd are high-maintainence users when compared to someone who knows the utility of understanding the use of the tools you need to do your job.
Those users are actually fairly pleasant. And their expectations are not that unrealistic. Computers should work as reliably as an appliance. Why shouldn't they?
The real horror users are those who think they know what they are doing. As they say, a little bit of knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all. These are the users who want to customize or fix things themselves, and still expect everything to work, even though they have screwed with the system. The users who have no knowledge, and just expect it to work (and don't fuck with things) are almost perfect users from an IT perspective. They are usually the most grateful for IT support's time and effort. The worst thing is a "power user" with blindspots and a demanding attitude.
The above applies to IT staff, too. Many of them expect users to adhere to their own way of doing things, even though they know nothing (or very little) about being a user of the systems.
You seem to think that the people getting the paychecks should be telling the people who write the paychecks what their priorities should be. Here's a clue: if you don't like it, just talk some people into lending you the money to start your own business
So, workers should give up on having pride in their work, and any chance of improving how their company works? Yeah, that should work out great. You seem to be proposing a fast train to mediocrity. It's pretty sad if the only alternative is to start your own business, rather than people becoming proud of and investing in the strengths of their existing company. I don't think the choice should be either mindless automaton or wntrepreneur. Not everybody has the resources to start their own company - but many people are capable of harnessing the strengths of their existing workplace.
I don't mean to insult you here or anything but you are coming off sounding like a socialist here. The business needs of the business are paramount here, and the business is owned by the shareholdres/venture capitalists and the execs are the management directly hired by the owners to run said company.
Actually, you sound like some sort of communist. Like the manager of factory in East Berlin or something. Where it is all about massaging the numbers to look good on paper, even if it isn't sustainable, just to meet the numbers required by the overseers.
The fact is that management often doesn't act in the best interests of a company, especially when it comes to issues they don't understand. This is why having "yes men" is bad. That hurt communism, and it hurts capitalism. Management can do things that look good on paper, but are disastrous in the real world. Whatever happened to excellence? If you really want to support the interests of a company, it behooves you to have smart and creative people, who have the courage to tell management that they are making bad decisions. Workers who mindlessly obey and don't offer contrary opinions are not in the interests of a company or the shareholders.
My immediate response to any subject that is strongly promoted by entertainers, especially Hollywood types, is to immediately write it off as complete nonsense.
That doesn't sound like a wise strategy. Seeing as you can find an entertainer or salesperson (paid actor) or politician promoting just about any subject you can think of - then every issue that has ever existed must be nonsense. I mean, I love nihilism as much as the next slashdotter, but I don't take it that far!
Perhaps they are best ignored. By reacting with total dismissal of the issue, you are in fact giving the actors power over you. Would you choose a computer platform just because some celebrity did or didn't use it? Or would you choose it based on your needs and your assessment of its suitability?
why don't environmentalists go after things that everyone can agree is bad for the planet and 100% caused by humans?
They do.
And as an awesome bonus, fixing some of these problems would also reduce our greenhouse gas footprint, thus killing two birds with one stone.
Which is mainstream environmental thought today. They are doing exactly what you ask of them.
Does anyone know why environmentalists keep beating the global warming horse when it's clear that people aren't going to listen?
Well, it's not clear that people aren't going to listen. In fact, many people seem very interested in the topic. Climate change is an important topic. There's no reason why environmentalists should not address this issue, and it doesn't prevent them from also addressing other issues at the same time. If anyone's beating a dead horse, it's the media with the "Global Warming Controvery - shock, horror, news at 11!" not environmentalists. Most of the environmentalists I know spend much more time on the other issues that you mention, while also considering climate change.
I'm not sure why you are blaming environmentalists, who are taking active steps to deal with all sorts of problems. Doesn't the blame lie more at the feet of those who refuse to do anything, or actively make things worse, in order to turn a profit? Is your posting on slashdot really helping things? Or is it just to make you feel superior to some stereotype of a group of people who are actually getting things done?
For every respected scientist that comes out in favor FOR global warming, there is another respected scientist that comes out against it..
If by "respected scientist" you mean oil industry or Republican party shill. In reality, there are very few respectable scientists who deny the existence of global warming. I also haven't really heard many people who actively support global warming, as you say. There are those who deny it exists, but only a few whackos actually support the idea of global warming - like those who believe that Kent Brockman line about driving our cars more so we can have hotter weather at the beach. And I don't think they are scientists.
but let's not publish her site URL. If this media-whore gets a good ruturn in publicity from her legal expenses, then expect more of these headlines (from even crazy-er wackos).
Nonsense. She deserves a good slashdotting. Also, we want more of these headlines, especially from crazier whackos. Why do you want to deprive us of our crazy-loon news? It always makes the day a little more enjoyable when you hear about nutjobs.
Open source, Creative Commons, etc. is wonderful stuff, but it's not the default. The default is copyright law.
You do realize that Open Source and Creative Commons are a part of copyright law, don't you? They are not opposing forces or contradictary.
Your statement doesn't really make any sense. There is no default "copyright law" when it comes to restictions on use or distribution. The law allows for copyright to be placed on a work, and allows the copyright holder the right to control how that work is distributed. But just because something is copyrighted, does not mean that copying is automatically disallowed. That only happens if the copyright holder specifies such restrictions. The copyright holder can also sell their rights, give them away, or put other conditions on it. They can also say informally - "Sure, you can copy my work, as long as you retain the attribution."
It might be good to learn a little about copyright before you make proclamations about it.
You mention folks buying Apple Hardware for the sole purpose of installing Linux on it... amm... d0h! No serious Linux user would do -that-; only apple fans...and if they're apple fans...
At my university, Computer Science seems to be dominated by Powerbook users who run Linux, not MacOS. Are you saying those people aren't "serious" Linux users? I don't understand. Why would the brand of hardware chosen to run Linux make a Linux user "non-serious"?
These guys probably have vanilla PC desktops at home, but when it comes to portable hardware, the Powerbook and Macbook Pro is held in high esteem.
Most instructors can barely teach the app they are running in one OS let alone two
Why would these teacher be teach an application? Wouldn't they be teaching the subject - English Literature or Art History, for example, and letting the students choose which tools they want to use? A University humanities course has more important things to do than teach applications. Students should learn that outside, if they haven't already learned.
Perhaps it would be nice for students to have hardware that doesn't suck? Macs can be more expensive, but it's usually not much. In some configurations, the comparable Mac is cheaper. But one thing's for sure - the Mac hardware is better quality than the average PCs installed in schools andd Universities. Compare an iMac's screen to the typical el-cheapo PC screen.
Then there are less tangible qualities, that can make a surprising difference. For example, the iMac saves a heap of desk space, and makes installation and servicing easier. You just plonk the machine on a desk and plug it in. No messing around with a bunch of cables and their associated clutter. They are extremely easy to move around.
I say this is more likely since while Macs can run Windows, they are hardly an ideal solution
Which is total nonsense. Running Windows under Bootcamp is better than running it natively on inexpensive PC hardware in my experience. It works perfectly, while many of those "made for Windows" machines have all kinds of setup issues.
But there is something even better than Bootcamp - Parallels. This is much better than running Windows natively. It's more secure, as it is running as a virtual machine. You can quickly suspend the state of the OS and reboot into that state later. You can switch between a variety of versions of Windows (and Linux) and a variety of configurations. You can quickly switch to MacOS tools, and move data from the Windows VM to the Mac host. It is far superior to running Windows directly on the hardware without virtualization.
And Linux and MacOS are not the same damn operating system, and do not run the same software. Some Linux software will run on MacOS with some tweaking, and vice-versa. But MacOS has a ton of libraries and APIs that aren't present in Linux.
The Mac offers nothing special or unique in the field of digital arts today.
It used to be the case that the Mac had better software tools and better color management but this is no longer true.
Not true. You can't get Final Cut Pro or Aperture on Windows. You can't get Logic or Digital Performer. Those are all Mac-only.
and many cost-concious design shops have gone over to Windows on generic workstations.
You mean "penny-wise, pund foolish" shops have gone over to Windows. It's not a rational decision, Windows still involves more support issues, and damages productivity. Good shops care about productivity, not saving a few dollars on a PC. It doesn't even make any sense from that angle, because Macs cost about the same price as comparable PCs, and are sometimes cheaper.
If access is only available to a specific platform, we might not be able to get a critical tip-off about potato blight in Idaho. Therefore, potatoes might not be available to make McDonalds Freedom Fries. Therefore, the US economy will collapse.
No, they are used differently. Bytes are not part of SI, so we get to do what makes sense for what we do.
So what? Mega and Giga are a part of SI, and a part of a consistent language beyond that. Just because "byte" was coined by programmers/computer science - doesn't mean it's appropriate to modify the prefixes.
Megabyte - is literally "Million Bytes"
The size of a byte, and its basis in binary math has nothing to do with it.
western digital started using 10^9 to compute disk capacity so they could list a bigger number. They got sued for false advertising, so they (and everybody else) now have to declare that they're using the 10^9 number when they say Gigabyte. Marketing weasels do not set standards.
That's just dumb. They got sued for using a term literally? It would have been more appropriate to sue software manufacturers for saying "this software requires 256MB of disk space" - when in actual fact it uses more. Remember, Mega=10^6.
Doesn't this debacle show how stupid people were for abusing the prefixes in the terminology? It was never formally defined as a standard, it was just a casual (mis)use of language. Western Digital is hardly to blame for that ambiguity, and that lawsuit should have been dismissed as baseless.
You claim there is no problem - but then you clearly demonstrate that there is a big problem - a company can get sued for using language more consistently. That's not good.
We won't change what we're doing because computers are base 2, not 10, so accomodations must be made.
Again, the arrogance and immaturity of the industry goes on show. You won't change because you're egotistical. In reality, the programmer works for the user. The user is more important than the programmer. (excluding of course, programs made by the programmer for him/herself)
Just because you program in base 2 has no relevance to the end user, who is most likely NOT using a base two number system. Shit, why even display decimal values at all? If you love binary so much, why doesn't your file browser list filesizes in binary? Why even use "mega" which is base ten? Why not just display all values as a direct binary value?
I am merely noting that most of us in the field use mega and giga, while the mebi, gibi faction is small and anemic.
That's because of attitudes like yours. Having the majority of an industry being wrong isn't exactly a good thing. It threatens the credibility of the industry. And there's nothing to stop you from continuing to use "mega" - just use it correctly. Most people use a decimal number system. And the binary system only really comes into play when doing low-level functions right up against the silicon. The majority of our use is in the higher layers.
What gives you authority over this?
None. Just like you have none. But metric and ISO standards are pretty much where it's at. It would be good for the industry to get involved in that, rather than being a ghetto.
I'm not. I'm arguing for consistency, and change when something isn't working well.
I like how things are, and there's no compelling reason to change.
Except there is a compelling reason to change. You just want to ignore it because of the sound of a word.
Largely because I'm used to kilo and kibi, mebi, gibi sound retarded.
That's just about the lamest argument ever. If you don't like the sound of it, then why didn't you think about that when "you" incorrectly used "Mega" and "Giga" to avoid this problem? But if you don't like the sound of "Mebi" - then just switch to "Mega" and use it correctly. But seriously. There are plenty of lame-sounding terms. Are these any lamer than "Kelvin" or "meter"? It's just because you aren't used to them.
I identify with my profession. What are you on about?
But not everybody in your profession agrees with this usage. What makes you think that all programmers agree with you? What am I on about? You claimed that "we" invented the term. So, did you, or did you not have anything to do with coining the term? If you didn't, you can't claim you were a part of the decision. Just being a programmer doesn't give you credit for that coinage, any more than you being a programmer means you were a part of inventing the Turing test.
Mega is 10^6 or 2^20 depending on context.
Which is why it is so retarded. It means 10^6 everywhere - except for this one "special" area. Where everything has to be different. Why? If you want computer science and engineering to be taken more seriously, and rise past the level of psychology, you should start acting more like the real scientists and engineers. Do you want to be stuck at the kid's table, or on the "special bus" where we have to make special exceptions for little Johnny IT (psst - he's a bit slow), or do you want to come to the big table?
I don't know how it is elsewhere in the world. But here in the US there is a computer in pretty much every home. They are about as common as screwdrivers and hammers. I don't know how much more widespread you could get than that.
But they are very primitive, and not used anywhere near their potential. many of the computers go almost unused. How much more widespread could they get? Well, a computer in everyone's pocket for a start. And also us making more effective use of them.
The marketing droids will continue to the terms just as they always have (incorrectly) because you have just made it correct for them to do so. The public will never be aware that any change was made at all and will continue to mistake a base 2 megabyte for a marketing megabyte.
I'm not seeing it. The current situation is much more vulnerable to marketing manipulation. If the terms were not so often interchanged, then an informed consumer could easily know what they are getting.
In any case, I don't see any evidence of this conspiracy by HD manufacturers that people keep whining about. On every company website that I've seen, they actually define "Gigabyte" (correctly) in the small print. This is something that I don't see very often in software or OSes, which freely use the term incorrectly, but don't disclose their definition.
The deception thus should lie on the software side - for example, is a software maker deceiving you, when they say that their application uses 256MB of RAM, when it is really consuming 256MiB of RAM? I'm not sure why everyone blames the HD manufacturers, but software gets off scott-free with their misrepresentations.
The only way to make this change happen appropriately would be to require labels on all computer merchandise that use base 2 units much like we do for food.
Couldn't we just encourage programmers and other people in the industry to use those terms correctly? For example, if my OS listed Mebibytes correctly, then people would become aware of it. Eventually, companies who did not use the standards would be questioned, and market/peer pressure would prevail.
The problem is that, as you can see on slashdot, programmers and others are so addicted to their labeling out of habit, that they want to either ignore the problem, or shout down anyone who proposes a standard. Although this label might be a minor issue in the scale of things - the attitude behind this really reveals the primitiveness of the industry as I alluded to above. Such unprofessional attitudes are widespread, and it makes computer people seem very immature compared to other sciences and fields of engineering - where the practitioners are much more willing to debate more rationally, and change their ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that was one of the problems of the dotcom boom. Investors and business were not smart, and expected unrealistic profits in a short time. There would have been more success if some of those ideas and businesses were given more time to develop. Instead, they were expected to be unreasonably profitable in the short-term. History shows us that those dotcoms that were given the time ended up being successful. Of course, some of the businesses were just duds that never should have been implemented in the first place, but there were many great ideas which had the plug pulled on them prematurely, due to stock market or investor panic.
Of course, the term "IT" is problematic here. Many dotcoms were not "IT" as such. IT is a stupidly retarded term in the first place, which is another of the problems. Just because something involves computers or the intarweb, doesn't mean it is "IT."
Those users are actually fairly pleasant. And their expectations are not that unrealistic. Computers should work as reliably as an appliance. Why shouldn't they?
The real horror users are those who think they know what they are doing. As they say, a little bit of knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all. These are the users who want to customize or fix things themselves, and still expect everything to work, even though they have screwed with the system. The users who have no knowledge, and just expect it to work (and don't fuck with things) are almost perfect users from an IT perspective. They are usually the most grateful for IT support's time and effort. The worst thing is a "power user" with blindspots and a demanding attitude.
The above applies to IT staff, too. Many of them expect users to adhere to their own way of doing things, even though they know nothing (or very little) about being a user of the systems.
So, workers should give up on having pride in their work, and any chance of improving how their company works? Yeah, that should work out great. You seem to be proposing a fast train to mediocrity. It's pretty sad if the only alternative is to start your own business, rather than people becoming proud of and investing in the strengths of their existing company. I don't think the choice should be either mindless automaton or wntrepreneur. Not everybody has the resources to start their own company - but many people are capable of harnessing the strengths of their existing workplace.
Actually, you sound like some sort of communist. Like the manager of factory in East Berlin or something. Where it is all about massaging the numbers to look good on paper, even if it isn't sustainable, just to meet the numbers required by the overseers.
The fact is that management often doesn't act in the best interests of a company, especially when it comes to issues they don't understand. This is why having "yes men" is bad. That hurt communism, and it hurts capitalism. Management can do things that look good on paper, but are disastrous in the real world. Whatever happened to excellence? If you really want to support the interests of a company, it behooves you to have smart and creative people, who have the courage to tell management that they are making bad decisions. Workers who mindlessly obey and don't offer contrary opinions are not in the interests of a company or the shareholders.
As opposed to all those amateur CEOs out there who just do it as a hobby, rather than for the money?
That doesn't sound like a wise strategy. Seeing as you can find an entertainer or salesperson (paid actor) or politician promoting just about any subject you can think of - then every issue that has ever existed must be nonsense. I mean, I love nihilism as much as the next slashdotter, but I don't take it that far!
Perhaps they are best ignored. By reacting with total dismissal of the issue, you are in fact giving the actors power over you. Would you choose a computer platform just because some celebrity did or didn't use it? Or would you choose it based on your needs and your assessment of its suitability?
They do.
And as an awesome bonus, fixing some of these problems would also reduce our greenhouse gas footprint, thus killing two birds with one stone.Which is mainstream environmental thought today. They are doing exactly what you ask of them.
Does anyone know why environmentalists keep beating the global warming horse when it's clear that people aren't going to listen?Well, it's not clear that people aren't going to listen. In fact, many people seem very interested in the topic. Climate change is an important topic. There's no reason why environmentalists should not address this issue, and it doesn't prevent them from also addressing other issues at the same time. If anyone's beating a dead horse, it's the media with the "Global Warming Controvery - shock, horror, news at 11!" not environmentalists. Most of the environmentalists I know spend much more time on the other issues that you mention, while also considering climate change.
I'm not sure why you are blaming environmentalists, who are taking active steps to deal with all sorts of problems. Doesn't the blame lie more at the feet of those who refuse to do anything, or actively make things worse, in order to turn a profit? Is your posting on slashdot really helping things? Or is it just to make you feel superior to some stereotype of a group of people who are actually getting things done?
If by "respected scientist" you mean oil industry or Republican party shill. In reality, there are very few respectable scientists who deny the existence of global warming. I also haven't really heard many people who actively support global warming, as you say. There are those who deny it exists, but only a few whackos actually support the idea of global warming - like those who believe that Kent Brockman line about driving our cars more so we can have hotter weather at the beach. And I don't think they are scientists.
Nonsense. She deserves a good slashdotting. Also, we want more of these headlines, especially from crazier whackos. Why do you want to deprive us of our crazy-loon news? It always makes the day a little more enjoyable when you hear about nutjobs.
Can someone please republish this site on a mirror?
"Lost"? What, exactly, did the GP poster lose? I wasn't ware of this thread being a competition.
You do realize that Open Source and Creative Commons are a part of copyright law, don't you? They are not opposing forces or contradictary.
Your statement doesn't really make any sense. There is no default "copyright law" when it comes to restictions on use or distribution. The law allows for copyright to be placed on a work, and allows the copyright holder the right to control how that work is distributed. But just because something is copyrighted, does not mean that copying is automatically disallowed. That only happens if the copyright holder specifies such restrictions. The copyright holder can also sell their rights, give them away, or put other conditions on it. They can also say informally - "Sure, you can copy my work, as long as you retain the attribution."
It might be good to learn a little about copyright before you make proclamations about it.
At my university, Computer Science seems to be dominated by Powerbook users who run Linux, not MacOS. Are you saying those people aren't "serious" Linux users? I don't understand. Why would the brand of hardware chosen to run Linux make a Linux user "non-serious"?
These guys probably have vanilla PC desktops at home, but when it comes to portable hardware, the Powerbook and Macbook Pro is held in high esteem.
World domination.
Why would these teacher be teach an application? Wouldn't they be teaching the subject - English Literature or Art History, for example, and letting the students choose which tools they want to use? A University humanities course has more important things to do than teach applications. Students should learn that outside, if they haven't already learned.
Then there are less tangible qualities, that can make a surprising difference. For example, the iMac saves a heap of desk space, and makes installation and servicing easier. You just plonk the machine on a desk and plug it in. No messing around with a bunch of cables and their associated clutter. They are extremely easy to move around.
Which is total nonsense. Running Windows under Bootcamp is better than running it natively on inexpensive PC hardware in my experience. It works perfectly, while many of those "made for Windows" machines have all kinds of setup issues.
But there is something even better than Bootcamp - Parallels. This is much better than running Windows natively. It's more secure, as it is running as a virtual machine. You can quickly suspend the state of the OS and reboot into that state later. You can switch between a variety of versions of Windows (and Linux) and a variety of configurations. You can quickly switch to MacOS tools, and move data from the Windows VM to the Mac host. It is far superior to running Windows directly on the hardware without virtualization.
Sorry, GNU's Not UNIX.
And Linux and MacOS are not the same damn operating system, and do not run the same software. Some Linux software will run on MacOS with some tweaking, and vice-versa. But MacOS has a ton of libraries and APIs that aren't present in Linux.
Not true. You can't get Final Cut Pro or Aperture on Windows. You can't get Logic or Digital Performer. Those are all Mac-only.
and many cost-concious design shops have gone over to Windows on generic workstations.You mean "penny-wise, pund foolish" shops have gone over to Windows. It's not a rational decision, Windows still involves more support issues, and damages productivity. Good shops care about productivity, not saving a few dollars on a PC. It doesn't even make any sense from that angle, because Macs cost about the same price as comparable PCs, and are sometimes cheaper.
How to stop the Dilbertization of IT?
Nuke the site from orbit.
In South Korea, only slashdot people use incontinence pads.
Don't mess with Idaho.
So what? Mega and Giga are a part of SI, and a part of a consistent language beyond that. Just because "byte" was coined by programmers/computer science - doesn't mean it's appropriate to modify the prefixes.
Megabyte - is literally "Million Bytes"
The size of a byte, and its basis in binary math has nothing to do with it.
western digital started using 10^9 to compute disk capacity so they could list a bigger number. They got sued for false advertising, so they (and everybody else) now have to declare that they're using the 10^9 number when they say Gigabyte. Marketing weasels do not set standards.That's just dumb. They got sued for using a term literally? It would have been more appropriate to sue software manufacturers for saying "this software requires 256MB of disk space" - when in actual fact it uses more. Remember, Mega=10^6.
Doesn't this debacle show how stupid people were for abusing the prefixes in the terminology? It was never formally defined as a standard, it was just a casual (mis)use of language. Western Digital is hardly to blame for that ambiguity, and that lawsuit should have been dismissed as baseless.
You claim there is no problem - but then you clearly demonstrate that there is a big problem - a company can get sued for using language more consistently. That's not good.
We won't change what we're doing because computers are base 2, not 10, so accomodations must be made.Again, the arrogance and immaturity of the industry goes on show. You won't change because you're egotistical. In reality, the programmer works for the user. The user is more important than the programmer. (excluding of course, programs made by the programmer for him/herself)
Just because you program in base 2 has no relevance to the end user, who is most likely NOT using a base two number system. Shit, why even display decimal values at all? If you love binary so much, why doesn't your file browser list filesizes in binary? Why even use "mega" which is base ten? Why not just display all values as a direct binary value?
I am merely noting that most of us in the field use mega and giga, while the mebi, gibi faction is small and anemic.That's because of attitudes like yours. Having the majority of an industry being wrong isn't exactly a good thing. It threatens the credibility of the industry. And there's nothing to stop you from continuing to use "mega" - just use it correctly. Most people use a decimal number system. And the binary system only really comes into play when doing low-level functions right up against the silicon. The majority of our use is in the higher layers.
What gives you authority over this?None. Just like you have none. But metric and ISO standards are pretty much where it's at. It would be good for the industry to get involved in that, rather than being a ghetto.
I'm not. I'm arguing for consistency, and change when something isn't working well.
I like how things are, and there's no compelling reason to change.Except there is a compelling reason to change. You just want to ignore it because of the sound of a word.
Largely because I'm used to kilo and kibi, mebi, gibi sound retarded.That's just about the lamest argument ever. If you don't like the sound of it, then why didn't you think about that when "you" incorrectly used "Mega" and "Giga" to avoid this problem? But if you don't like the sound of "Mebi" - then just switch to "Mega" and use it correctly. But seriously. There are plenty of lame-sounding terms. Are these any lamer than "Kelvin" or "meter"? It's just because you aren't used to them.
I identify with my profession. What are you on about?But not everybody in your profession agrees with this usage. What makes you think that all programmers agree with you? What am I on about? You claimed that "we" invented the term. So, did you, or did you not have anything to do with coining the term? If you didn't, you can't claim you were a part of the decision. Just being a programmer doesn't give you credit for that coinage, any more than you being a programmer means you were a part of inventing the Turing test.
Mega is 10^6 or 2^20 depending on context.Which is why it is so retarded. It means 10^6 everywhere - except for this one "special" area. Where everything has to be different. Why? If you want computer science and engineering to be taken more seriously, and rise past the level of psychology, you should start acting more like the real scientists and engineers. Do you want to be stuck at the kid's table, or on the "special bus" where we have to make special exceptions for little Johnny IT (psst - he's a bit slow), or do you want to come to the big table?
But they are very primitive, and not used anywhere near their potential. many of the computers go almost unused. How much more widespread could they get? Well, a computer in everyone's pocket for a start. And also us making more effective use of them.
The marketing droids will continue to the terms just as they always have (incorrectly) because you have just made it correct for them to do so. The public will never be aware that any change was made at all and will continue to mistake a base 2 megabyte for a marketing megabyte.I'm not seeing it. The current situation is much more vulnerable to marketing manipulation. If the terms were not so often interchanged, then an informed consumer could easily know what they are getting.
In any case, I don't see any evidence of this conspiracy by HD manufacturers that people keep whining about. On every company website that I've seen, they actually define "Gigabyte" (correctly) in the small print. This is something that I don't see very often in software or OSes, which freely use the term incorrectly, but don't disclose their definition.
The deception thus should lie on the software side - for example, is a software maker deceiving you, when they say that their application uses 256MB of RAM, when it is really consuming 256MiB of RAM? I'm not sure why everyone blames the HD manufacturers, but software gets off scott-free with their misrepresentations.
The only way to make this change happen appropriately would be to require labels on all computer merchandise that use base 2 units much like we do for food.Couldn't we just encourage programmers and other people in the industry to use those terms correctly? For example, if my OS listed Mebibytes correctly, then people would become aware of it. Eventually, companies who did not use the standards would be questioned, and market/peer pressure would prevail.
The problem is that, as you can see on slashdot, programmers and others are so addicted to their labeling out of habit, that they want to either ignore the problem, or shout down anyone who proposes a standard. Although this label might be a minor issue in the scale of things - the attitude behind this really reveals the primitiveness of the industry as I alluded to above. Such unprofessional attitudes are widespread, and it makes computer people seem very immature compared to other sciences and fields of engineering - where the practitioners are much more willing to debate more rationally, and change their ways.