| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:02 am Post subject:
Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! |
|
|
Rich The Newsgroup Wacko wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:58:02 -0800, tadchem wrote:
onehappymadman@yahoo.com wrote:
What's so special about 2^10 that computer scientists say it's 1k? The
SI system says 1k is 1000. 2^10 is not 1000, it is 1024.
Why not just say 1 KB = 2^9.965784285 bytes (= 1000)? If you're going
to nerd out, then nerd out completely, I say.
A 'byte' is *NOT* an SI unit. Neither are bits. Computers and their
geeks are not required to abide by SI conventions.
In computer jargon, 1 K = 2^10 = 1024 *by definition*, and it is so
defined for convenience.
1024 is close enough to 1000 for estimating purposes, and K-bytes are
usually used for estimating memory allotments and file sizes.
If you have 10 phalanges (fingers + thumbs) on your hands and you know
how to count in binary, then you can count to 1023 without taking your
shoes off. Hard-core computer geeks wear sandals. You can get to
1,048,575 (one 'meg') that way.
And if you're naked, boys can count to 2,097,151. ;-P
|
Oh geez. Everyone, male or female, can count at least up to 16,777,215
(8 fingers, 2 thumbs, 10 toes, 2 arms, 2 legs). Reserve the male part
as an "overflow flag".
:)
| Quote: | --
Cheers!
Rich
------
"Why marry a virgin? If she wasn't good enough for the rest of them then
she isn't good enough for you." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tadchem
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:02 am Post subject:
Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! |
|
|
onehappymadman@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
| Quote: | Apparently I'm running into the limits of my TI-85 calculator. It says
2^9.965784284662 through 2^9.965784284669 all equal 1000. Hmm...
|
FWIW, I get the following with Excel 2003:
2^9.965784284662 = 999.99999999994
2^9.96578428466209 = 1000
2^9.965784284669 = 1000.00000000479
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PD
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:31 am Post subject:
Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! |
|
|
tadchem wrote:
| Quote: | onehappymadman@yahoo.com wrote:
snip
Apparently I'm running into the limits of my TI-85 calculator. It says
2^9.965784284662 through 2^9.965784284669 all equal 1000. Hmm...
FWIW, I get the following with Excel 2003:
2^9.965784284662 = 999.99999999994
2^9.96578428466209 = 1000
2^9.965784284669 = 1000.00000000479
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
|
FWIW, remember the teeny identity log [base a] ( x ) / log [base a] ( b
) = log [base b] ( x )
so that log[2](1000) = log[10](1000)/log[10](2) = 3/0.301029996 =
9.965784284..... to whatever precision you want and without any trial
and error.
PD
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ben Rudiak-Gould
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:36 am Post subject:
Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! |
|
|
Randy Poe wrote:
| Quote: | jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Yup. DUNGEOn. That has also been resurrected.
It has?
I may regret asking this but... where would I find it?
|
Try Baf's Guide to the IF Archive:
http://www.wurb.com/if/index
Not only are people still playing old interactive fiction games, they're
still writing new ones. The IFComp attracts dozens of entries each year:
http://www.ifcomp.org/
-- Ben |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:36 am Post subject:
Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! |
|
|
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1134076511.558593.310090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
Unlike a lot of people, I *do* care about what is inside of my box. On
a related note, I will *NOT* use Maxtor drives nor will Intel - barring
a serious shift towards quality - ever grace my systems again.
You don't have a need to know how that part of the computing biz
is working? It is a pretty bad bias that you're incorporating
into your computing usage. I stayed with AOL just to observe
what most uneducated users were experiencing. In that way I can
extrapolate computing needs and usage 5-10 years from now.
|
Eh?
My aversion to Intel and Maxtor is through personal experience and
overwhelming ancedotal evidence from other people. Not because of some
ignorant bias, like what you seem to be implying.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Gisse
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:36 am Post subject:
Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! |
|
|
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1133987193.988482.21730@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1133929933.977912.103900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1133922573.855472.297320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
onehappymadman@yahoo.com> wrote:
What's so special about 2^10 that computer scientists say it's 1k? The
SI system says 1k is 1000. 2^10 is not 1000, it is 1024.
Why not just say 1 KB = 2^9.965784285 bytes (= 1000)? If you're going
to nerd out, then nerd out completely, I say.
1024 is close enough to 1000 for jargon. The meaning is determined from
the context. If you want to sling around a more exact jargon, then use
kibibyte, mebibyte, and gibibyte.
It is "close enough" for the marketing assholes too.
My 300 "GB" harddrive manages to have only 270 actual gigs.
Do you mean 270GB available for the user? 30GB is a lot of
space that has to be reserved for the OS....hmmm....10%
I can't remember what the ratio is for housekeeping.
Try doing a directory of the hidden files and see how much
they take up. Subtract from 300-270 and that may give
you a very rough guesstimate w.r.t. how much space is
needed to manage the disk geometry. My knowledge is based
on olden days, so new thingies may have been created for
bit managments.
Correction. 279 gigabytes.
279 gigabytes upon installation and initial format. It was formatted to
NTFS, and it is a single partition. 21 gigs were not dissapeared by my
actions, it is simply marketing fuck-uppery that is the cause of this.
It has nothing to do with marketing but with bookkeeping. The file
information takes up space. This information tells where the file
is, which directory, how big, all the date-time stamps that
are needed to bookkeep the files, etc. We called this storage
overhead. In our scheme, for each file, there were about 100
words (36bits/word) that were needed to just maintain the file
system. There was another set of files maintained by the OS
that managed the physical bits of each disk.
|
It *isn't* overhead though!
I'm trying to be real clear about this. I am not confused about what
overhead is, nor am I confused about hidden files. I am also not saying
you are confused, it is just that you are totally correct about the
wrong thing! :P
| Quote: |
Note also that a directory is also a file from the point of view
of the operating system. So, if you have 10,000 files on your
disk at installation time, you have to multiply 10,000 by
the number of bytes it takes to retain information about each
file.
|
All true, but irrelevant to the situation at hand. :)
My O/S measures and addresses everything in bytes, kilobytes,
megabytes, gigabytes.
All of these quantities, as you know, are multiples of 1024.
The drives are sold, though, using the pseudo-SI measurments of
'mebbibytes' and other fantastically annoying measurments that
completely defines the phrase "close, but not quite".
One 'mebbibyte' or however the fuck you spell it is 1x10^6 bytes, not
1024^2 bytes [I always remember stuff in powers of 1024 rather than 2].
The difference is only 48,576 bytes but it adds up when you are in the
hundreds of gigabytes range.
This is all explained in the drive's fine print, but still annoys the
piss out of me because I always feel slightly cheated.
| Quote: |
To make things easier to understand back in the day, the term megabyte
and gigabyte were redefined by not those who use them but by those who
sell the products to be in multiples of a thousand. In small drives
that doesn't really matter but in the hundreds of gigs you get amounts
of space dissapearing that is on the order of the average drive size
not too long ago.
EVen for teensy little storage media, there had to be data
for bookkeeping purposes.
For instance, in our scheme, each block had a bit reserved in
a file. Thus, if there were 80,000 blocks on the disk,
there was file that contained 80,000 bits. Whenever a block
went "bad" (cosmic rays were always a convenient explanation),
the operating system would mark the corresponding bit in this
BADBLK.SYS file and the OS used this info to avoid trying
to write good data over a block that couldn't be written.
|
In my understanding, modern drives have a little bit of space reserved
[but unrelated to the marketed total] set aside for taking the place of
the occasional bad cluster.
| Quote: |
This is another task that we called bookkeeping.
/BAH |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Grise
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:38 am Post subject:
Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 15:24:03 -0800, Eric Gisse wrote:
| Quote: | jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
....
It *isn't* overhead though!
I'm trying to be real clear about this. I am not confused about what
overhead is, nor am I confused about hidden files. I am also not saying
you are confused, it is just that you are totally correct about the
wrong thing! :P
Note also that a directory is also a file from the point of view
of the operating system. So, if you have 10,000 files on your
disk at installation time, you have to multiply 10,000 by
the number of bytes it takes to retain information about each
file.
All true, but irrelevant to the situation at hand. :)
My O/S measures and addresses everything in bytes, kilobytes,
megabytes, gigabytes.
All of these quantities, as you know, are multiples of 1024.
The drives are sold, though, using the pseudo-SI measurments of
'mebbibytes' and other fantastically annoying measurments that
completely defines the phrase "close, but not quite".
One 'mebbibyte' or however the fuck you spell it is 1x10^6 bytes, not
1024^2 bytes [I always remember stuff in powers of 1024 rather than 2].
The difference is only 48,576 bytes but it adds up when you are in the
hundreds of gigabytes range.
|
Speaking of being "right" about the "wrong" thing, you've got it exactly
back-asswards.
A "kibibyte" is 1024 bytes, and so on. The ones with the "b" in the middle
are the binary ones, multiples of 1024 decimal. (10000000000 binary). The
marketing ploy is to take a drive that actually has 279 * 1,073,741,824
(decimal) bytes of storage, and say it has 300 * 1,000,000,000 (decimal)
bytes. So when they sell you a "300 MeGaByte" drive, they're selling you a
"279 MeBiByte" drive.
Non-geeks don't spot it, and, like audiophools, spend more money per byte
than geeks do. ;-P
Cheers!
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mensanator@aol.compost
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! |
|
|
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1134147969.609373.291690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Does anybody want a copy of "Lisa on a Stool" on paper
tape? I'll trade you for the lunar landscape.
Boo-hoo. Nobody ever made a male pinup. It was a couple
years later (after that printer paper phase) that Burt
Reynolds was the centerfold. It caused a huge sensation
in my group which was 100% female at the time. Even
then they wouldn't let me look and I was too cheap to
buy a magazine.
|
Ah, the difference between men and women.
Do you think the development of GUI was driven by men's
never ending desire to get better pinups? If women were
in charge, would we still be using TTY interfaces? Not that
there's anything wrong with that, I am currently working on
making yet another port (3rd or 4th) of the 25 year old
Apple ][ text adventure game THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF EAMON
to Python so I can still play it without mucking about with
an emulator.
Of course, I'm somewhat nostalgic having written my first
program with BASIC on a Teletype. It was interesting
watching the Teletype s..l..o..w..l..y print out the results
of your MIRV warhead cluster detonating over the computer's
cities and waiting for it's retaliation. It was so slow you could
add up the numbers in your head before the totals were printed
to see who won that exchange (and whether 3 independently
targeted 1 megaton warheads were better in the long run
than single 5-10 megaton warheads). But the novelty of that
wore off quickly.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! |
|
|
In article <1134152096.856884.22220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
onehappymadman@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: |
Rich The Newsgroup Wacko wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:58:02 -0800, tadchem wrote:
onehappymadman@yahoo.com wrote:
What's so special about 2^10 that computer scientists say it's 1k? The
SI system says 1k is 1000. 2^10 is not 1000, it is 1024.
Why not just say 1 KB = 2^9.965784285 bytes (= 1000)? If you're going
to nerd out, then nerd out completely, I say.
A 'byte' is *NOT* an SI unit. Neither are bits. Computers and their
geeks are not required to abide by SI conventions.
In computer jargon, 1 K = 2^10 = 1024 *by definition*, and it is so
defined for convenience.
1024 is close enough to 1000 for estimating purposes, and K-bytes are
usually used for estimating memory allotments and file sizes.
If you have 10 phalanges (fingers + thumbs) on your hands and you know
how to count in binary, then you can count to 1023 without taking your
shoes off. Hard-core computer geeks wear sandals. You can get to
1,048,575 (one 'meg') that way.
And if you're naked, boys can count to 2,097,151. ;-P
Oh geez. Everyone, male or female, can count at least up to 16,777,215
(8 fingers, 2 thumbs, 10 toes, 2 arms, 2 legs). Reserve the male part
as an "overflow flag".
:)
Nope. Not overflow. Parity check bit. |
/BAH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! |
|
|
In article <1134169696.002049.123570@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1134076511.558593.310090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
Unlike a lot of people, I *do* care about what is inside of my box. On
a related note, I will *NOT* use Maxtor drives nor will Intel - barring
a serious shift towards quality - ever grace my systems again.
You don't have a need to know how that part of the computing biz
is working? It is a pretty bad bias that you're incorporating
into your computing usage. I stayed with AOL just to observe
what most uneducated users were experiencing. In that way I can
extrapolate computing needs and usage 5-10 years from now.
Eh?
My aversion to Intel and Maxtor is through personal experience and
overwhelming ancedotal evidence from other people. Not because of some
ignorant bias, like what you seem to be implying.
|
Reread what I wrote. You ensure that your bias remain ignorant.
Intel is contantly working on fixing bugs, aspects, and new
architectures or twiddles of the current architecture. If you
don't play with it occasionally, you won't know if what bit
you badly has been fixed or still exists. If you expect any
of your work to be used or transferred to or through an
Intel architecture platform, then it is wise and frugal to
check out the competition every once in a while.
I can't think of any computing that won't be put on or thru
an Intel these days.
/BAH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! |
|
|
In article <1134170642.976215.145090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1133987193.988482.21730@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1133929933.977912.103900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1133922573.855472.297320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
onehappymadman@yahoo.com> wrote:
What's so special about 2^10 that computer scientists say it's 1k?
The
SI system says 1k is 1000. 2^10 is not 1000, it is 1024.
Why not just say 1 KB = 2^9.965784285 bytes (= 1000)? If you're
going
to nerd out, then nerd out completely, I say.
1024 is close enough to 1000 for jargon. The meaning is determined
from
the context. If you want to sling around a more exact jargon, then
use
kibibyte, mebibyte, and gibibyte.
It is "close enough" for the marketing assholes too.
My 300 "GB" harddrive manages to have only 270 actual gigs.
Do you mean 270GB available for the user? 30GB is a lot of
space that has to be reserved for the OS....hmmm....10%
I can't remember what the ratio is for housekeeping.
Try doing a directory of the hidden files and see how much
they take up. Subtract from 300-270 and that may give
you a very rough guesstimate w.r.t. how much space is
needed to manage the disk geometry. My knowledge is based
on olden days, so new thingies may have been created for
bit managments.
Correction. 279 gigabytes.
279 gigabytes upon installation and initial format. It was formatted to
NTFS, and it is a single partition. 21 gigs were not dissapeared by my
actions, it is simply marketing fuck-uppery that is the cause of this.
It has nothing to do with marketing but with bookkeeping. The file
information takes up space. This information tells where the file
is, which directory, how big, all the date-time stamps that
are needed to bookkeep the files, etc. We called this storage
overhead. In our scheme, for each file, there were about 100
words (36bits/word) that were needed to just maintain the file
system. There was another set of files maintained by the OS
that managed the physical bits of each disk.
It *isn't* overhead though!
I'm trying to be real clear about this. I am not confused about what
overhead is, nor am I confused about hidden files. I am also not saying
you are confused, it is just that you are totally correct about the
wrong thing! :P
|
<GRIN> I'm correct about the wrong thing very often. You seem
to be a tad confused below.
| Quote: |
Note also that a directory is also a file from the point of view
of the operating system. So, if you have 10,000 files on your
disk at installation time, you have to multiply 10,000 by
the number of bytes it takes to retain information about each
file.
All true, but irrelevant to the situation at hand. :)
My O/S measures and addresses everything in bytes, kilobytes,
megabytes, gigabytes.
|
So? Substitute bytes for blocks.
| Quote: |
All of these quantities, as you know, are multiples of 1024.
The drives are sold, though, using the pseudo-SI measurments of
'mebbibytes' and other fantastically annoying measurments that
completely defines the phrase "close, but not quite".
|
They aren't using any SI. And the numbers have always been
that close, but not quite.
| Quote: |
One 'mebbibyte' or however the fuck you spell it is 1x10^6 bytes, not
1024^2 bytes [I always remember stuff in powers of 1024 rather than 2].
The difference is only 48,576 bytes but it adds up when you are in the
hundreds of gigabytes range.
|
You should try to think in bits not bytes. A byte is
a variable length, which is increasing over time as more bit
patterns in the standards are needed.
| Quote: |
This is all explained in the drive's fine print, but still annoys the
piss out of me because I always feel slightly cheated.
|
Do you always feel slightly cheated when you buy a car and
the estimated mileage/gallon doesn't exactly match.
| Quote: |
To make things easier to understand back in the day, the term megabyte
and gigabyte were redefined by not those who use them but by those who
sell the products to be in multiples of a thousand. In small drives
that doesn't really matter but in the hundreds of gigs you get amounts
of space dissapearing that is on the order of the average drive size
not too long ago.
EVen for teensy little storage media, there had to be data
for bookkeeping purposes.
For instance, in our scheme, each block had a bit reserved in
a file. Thus, if there were 80,000 blocks on the disk,
there was file that contained 80,000 bits. Whenever a block
went "bad" (cosmic rays were always a convenient explanation),
the operating system would mark the corresponding bit in this
BADBLK.SYS file and the OS used this info to avoid trying
to write good data over a block that couldn't be written.
In my understanding, modern drives have a little bit of space reserved
[but unrelated to the marketed total] set aside for taking the place of
the occasional bad cluster.
|
Think about how you would keep track of bad spots on the disk.
Then think about how you, the operating system, would prevent
itself from writing to that _physical_ spot.
When you go through this design process, solving all of the
holes in each iteration of your design, you will probably
produce an equivalent of what the olde bit gods designed.
In some things, the old-fashioned way is the only way.
The reason for this is that you cannot change physical
properties on a whim.
/BAH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! |
|
|
In article <3vtqvtF17lg8sU1@individual.net>,
"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dnbrec$8qk_001@s844.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <dnaa64$103$1@news.math.niu.edu>,
rusin@vesuvius.math.niu.edu (Dave Rusin) wrote:
In article <dn9dv8$8qk_004@s815.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
In article <3vqqosF174ir0U1@individual.net>,
Robert Low <mtx014@coventry.ac.uk> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
As with all GUIshit, you need to be able to run a maze of
twisty little passages,
Whoa, flashback. And I never did find where that fucking
pirate hid all my treasure :-( (No, I don't want anybody
to tell me now, thanks.)
There is now a couple of emulators that can be run on your
teensy PC so that you can play games. I never found the
place either. I let somebody else do that mapping work.
Ooh! Ooh! Do I get brownie points for being able to lay my hands on
my notes in just minutes? I actually wrote this down at the keyboard
maybe a decade after having first played.
Another woman and I played it. She figured out most of the
bloody mazes since she was still at home rearing rug rats.
After we finished the game, she bought a set of tinkertoys
and recreated the whole game map. She took a picture before
her sons demolished it but a 2D pic didn't do it justice.
The mazes were a bitch.
Say, what did that other fellow mean about "getting a life"?
Well, I tell you. When the game hit our department, about a
dozen bit gods stopped all work. It was install on a Friday.
When I came in Monday morning, every single one of them was
red-eyed, bushed, and weary from working on the "bug" all
weekend. They did not sleep; I think they ate. I'm amazed
that they managed to find the bathroom.
IIRC, the last point couldn't be found and they spent 12 hours
fucking around trying all kinds of things. Then a guy, /CDO,
typed the command SET ADDRESS BREAK which caused the monitor
(a.k.a. kernal to you Unix types) to stop when a certain location
was written. Then they looked at the code with DDT and
finally figured out how to get the last point. Only a Real Bit
God would take this approach. The same /CDO finished up the
project by writing a script that would do the whole game
in the fastest way without a wasted move.
And that, boys and girls, is how software development should
be done...especially the piece about documentation.
I first saw this game at a friend's apartment. She was a civil-service
programmer for a US Navy lab, and had a portable dial-up terminal (with
built-in acoustic-coupler modem) that she could take home. After a couple
of days of watching my frustration, she took a large sheet of paper from her
briefcase that mapped out the whole game. It was no fun after that.
|
Yup. The most pleasurable thing about today's games is the
mapping part while solving the puzzles. The thinking and
approaches used to do this activity is very similar to operating
system work. She should have cut out the maze parts, and let
you work at it.
Working at the maze for a couple of days seems a tad long.
What kinds of approaches did you use? Or were you simply
stuck using the brute force method without making paper notes?
/BAH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject:
Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! |
|
|
In article <1134147969.609373.291690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <1134058979.637032.186380@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Robert Low wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
As with all GUIshit, you need to be able to run a maze of
twisty little passages,
Whoa, flashback. And I never did find where that fucking
pirate hid all my treasure :-( (No, I don't want anybody
to tell me now, thanks.)
I solved that one. But there was a much more elaborate game
called "dungeo" that I never solved.
Yup. DUNGEOn. That has also been resurrected.
It has?
|
Yup. Now I have to warn you that I keep confusing
the requirements between DUNGEOn and HAUNT. One of them
needs MDL (pronounced muddle). Some blessed soul has
done the work to get that available.
| Quote: |
I may regret asking this but... where would I find it?
|
I'm hittemal challenged. I can't give a precise address.
The way most people are getting it installed is by
first installing the hardware emulator, then the operating
system (this part of the game can take lots of enjoyable
time), then the game.
| Quote: |
Another one,
where I made absolutely no headway (IOW, I played for fifteen
minutes and gave up) was HAUNT.
That one missed me.
|
It would because it took up huge amounts of a large PDP-10
system resources. It came patched so that it could only
be run non-prime time...unless you were the wizard and
knew the password :-).
| Quote: |
Another time-waster on our campus PDP-10 was "real-time
Star Trek", first real-time computer game I ever saw. This was
pre video-game, and in fact almost pre-video-terminal. There were
only a couple of CRT terminals on campus. So just imagine the
number of trees killed by a game which every couple of
seconds reprints a new copy of the grid.
|
Last spring (I think) some guy resurrected that one and
couldn't get it to work until I told him to SET TTY TTY.
He had a fine time because he also tried to debug it
using DDT which automatically caused a SET TTY TTY.
I always think of Heisenburg whenever that happened to
us.
| Quote: |
A friend of mine reverse engineered the Star Trek game from
a memory dump, disassembling the machine code by hand.
|
Good lord! I'd hire him.
| Quote: | Sane people might ask "why?" I know I did, though I make
no claim to sanity where games are concerned.
|
Oh, it was very good pre-training.
| Quote: |
Does anybody want a copy of "Lisa on a Stool" on paper
tape? I'll trade you for the lunar landscape.
|
Boo-hoo. Nobody ever made a male pinup. It was a couple
years later (after that printer paper phase) that Burt
Reynolds was the centerfold. It caused a huge sensation
in my group which was 100% female at the time. Even
then they wouldn't let me look and I was too cheap to
buy a magazine.
/BAH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:12 am Post subject:
Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! |
|
|
In article <87u0djh291.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org>,
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) writes:
I was a little surprised to see... I think it was 12 MP (effective)
claimed for Canon's new $3000 full-frame digital SLR. That's a serious
price tag for serious photographers, and they're still pushing
(effective) pixels.
Sometimes the fraud is smaller than others. They may have 2 green
sensors to 1 blue one and 1 red one, and claim 2 pixels rather than
one and a third. If they're outputting human-vision-modelled
image files, then that's in some ways fair. However, I think
that they should state their photodiode arrangement, and let
the consumer judge from raw facts rather than processed ones.
Then again, the average consumer really doesn't give a toss what
s/he's buying.
|
There's often a lack of information that you might think is important. It
would be nice to see some measure of battery performance on battery
packages, for instance. But no hint is given on the difference between
e.g. "heavy duty", "alkaline", and "digital", besides some meaningless
jingle like "longer life".
But the average consumer doesn't plunk down $3000 on a digital SLR.
--
"And don't skimp on the mayonnaise!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slebetman@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:38 am Post subject:
Re: why do computer scientists say 1KB=1024 bytes?!! |
|
|
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1133957672.066443.219040@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"slebetman@yahoo.com" <slebetman@gmail.com> wrote:
.. That's why a lot of older
documentation talked about 'octets'.
We never did. I don't recall ever typing that word.
|
The basis of the internet. Almost all RFCs use octet instead of byte:
RFC791 - IP
RFC1332 - PPP
RFC1731 - IMAP
RFC1962 - SOCKS
RFC2251 - LDAP
RFC2279 - UTF-8
etc...
| Quote: | Despite criticisms, kiB, MiB, GiB are catching on. I've started seeing
them in tender documents and specifications.
And what does a spell checker do with them?
|
Nothing mainly because tender documents and specifications come in
printed form on thick bundles of paper. But it makes the client's
lawyers happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in