<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_27_1451238</id>
	<title>Ubuntu Will Switch To Base-10 File Size Units In Future Release</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269705300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:cyberdragon777@gma\%5B\%5Dcom\%5B'il.'ingap\%5D" rel="nofollow">CyberDragon777</a> writes <i>"Ubuntu's future 10.10 operating system is going to make a small, but contentious change to how file sizes are represented. Like most other operating systems using binary prefixes, Ubuntu currently represents 1 kB (kilobyte) as 1024 bytes (base-2). But starting with 10.10, <a href="http://www.neowin.net/news/ubuntu-implements-units-policy-will-switch-to-base-10-units-in-future-release">a switch to SI prefixes (base-10) will denote 1 kB as 1000 bytes</a>, 1 MB as 1000 kB, 1 GB as 1000 MB, and so on."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CyberDragon777 writes " Ubuntu 's future 10.10 operating system is going to make a small , but contentious change to how file sizes are represented .
Like most other operating systems using binary prefixes , Ubuntu currently represents 1 kB ( kilobyte ) as 1024 bytes ( base-2 ) .
But starting with 10.10 , a switch to SI prefixes ( base-10 ) will denote 1 kB as 1000 bytes , 1 MB as 1000 kB , 1 GB as 1000 MB , and so on .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CyberDragon777 writes "Ubuntu's future 10.10 operating system is going to make a small, but contentious change to how file sizes are represented.
Like most other operating systems using binary prefixes, Ubuntu currently represents 1 kB (kilobyte) as 1024 bytes (base-2).
But starting with 10.10, a switch to SI prefixes (base-10) will denote 1 kB as 1000 bytes, 1 MB as 1000 kB, 1 GB as 1000 MB, and so on.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646968</id>
	<title>Enough is enough!</title>
	<author>Compaqt</author>
	<datestamp>1269788520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm moving to HURD.</p><p>(HURD of Ubuntu-Replacing Daemons)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm moving to HURD .
( HURD of Ubuntu-Replacing Daemons )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm moving to HURD.
(HURD of Ubuntu-Replacing Daemons)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640512</id>
	<title>Re:Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>tuomoks</author>
	<datestamp>1269712200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, 512 or whatever base-2 sector size is not arbitrary - the disk controlling hardware / buffers / controllers / channels / etc and especially the transfer sizes, multipliers in headers, and so on are (still) base-2. If you ever do performance / capacity calculations or estimates for storage size, etc, you very fast find base-2 very handy.</p><p>The disk size error is not a big deal - there always is an overhead that changes by storage type, file system, fixed physical characteristics, key / data compression used, replication, whatever - so? The public (and I think many in IT) really don't know and/or have to know more than if they have enough or need more!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , 512 or whatever base-2 sector size is not arbitrary - the disk controlling hardware / buffers / controllers / channels / etc and especially the transfer sizes , multipliers in headers , and so on are ( still ) base-2 .
If you ever do performance / capacity calculations or estimates for storage size , etc , you very fast find base-2 very handy.The disk size error is not a big deal - there always is an overhead that changes by storage type , file system , fixed physical characteristics , key / data compression used , replication , whatever - so ?
The public ( and I think many in IT ) really do n't know and/or have to know more than if they have enough or need more !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, 512 or whatever base-2 sector size is not arbitrary - the disk controlling hardware / buffers / controllers / channels / etc and especially the transfer sizes, multipliers in headers, and so on are (still) base-2.
If you ever do performance / capacity calculations or estimates for storage size, etc, you very fast find base-2 very handy.The disk size error is not a big deal - there always is an overhead that changes by storage type, file system, fixed physical characteristics, key / data compression used, replication, whatever - so?
The public (and I think many in IT) really don't know and/or have to know more than if they have enough or need more!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641790</id>
	<title>Re:And I thought geeks were supposed to be FLEXIBL</title>
	<author>Joe Tie.</author>
	<datestamp>1269720960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reading slashdot should show any kid that they're not any better off than anyone else when it comes to being left behind the times due to age. The extent of "aging geek syndrome" here is probably worse than almost anywhere on the web proper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading slashdot should show any kid that they 're not any better off than anyone else when it comes to being left behind the times due to age .
The extent of " aging geek syndrome " here is probably worse than almost anywhere on the web proper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading slashdot should show any kid that they're not any better off than anyone else when it comes to being left behind the times due to age.
The extent of "aging geek syndrome" here is probably worse than almost anywhere on the web proper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641882</id>
	<title>Re:Dumbing Down</title>
	<author>Homburg</author>
	<datestamp>1269721860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whatever next? Ten bits in a byte?</p></div><p>Why not? Six and nine bit bytes used not to be that uncommon. The only reason eight-bit bytes have become standard is because of the same superstition about powers of two that leads people to insist on the ridiculous "K=1024" nonsense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever next ?
Ten bits in a byte ? Why not ?
Six and nine bit bytes used not to be that uncommon .
The only reason eight-bit bytes have become standard is because of the same superstition about powers of two that leads people to insist on the ridiculous " K = 1024 " nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever next?
Ten bits in a byte?Why not?
Six and nine bit bytes used not to be that uncommon.
The only reason eight-bit bytes have become standard is because of the same superstition about powers of two that leads people to insist on the ridiculous "K=1024" nonsense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643890</id>
	<title>Re:Dumbing Down</title>
	<author>jbb999</author>
	<datestamp>1269696900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correct.
Anyone who says that a kilobyte is 1000 or a megabyte is 1000000 is simply ignorant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct .
Anyone who says that a kilobyte is 1000 or a megabyte is 1000000 is simply ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct.
Anyone who says that a kilobyte is 1000 or a megabyte is 1000000 is simply ignorant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640858</id>
	<title>Re:Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1269714360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``Well--except that pesky material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1' state or a '0' state. Most people call that a 'bit'. Strangely enough, that 'binary' state is conducive to measuring in powers of two...''</p><p>At first, I thought "well, duh", of course you're right.</p><p>But then I realized that there is absolutely nothing preventing you from measuring storage in SI-multiples of bits. Which is the same thing Ethernet does with transfer rates, incidentally. So really, just because a bit has two states doesn't mean that this somehow makes it easier to express number of bits in powers of two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` Well--except that pesky material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1 ' state or a '0 ' state .
Most people call that a 'bit' .
Strangely enough , that 'binary ' state is conducive to measuring in powers of two...''At first , I thought " well , duh " , of course you 're right.But then I realized that there is absolutely nothing preventing you from measuring storage in SI-multiples of bits .
Which is the same thing Ethernet does with transfer rates , incidentally .
So really , just because a bit has two states does n't mean that this somehow makes it easier to express number of bits in powers of two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``Well--except that pesky material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1' state or a '0' state.
Most people call that a 'bit'.
Strangely enough, that 'binary' state is conducive to measuring in powers of two...''At first, I thought "well, duh", of course you're right.But then I realized that there is absolutely nothing preventing you from measuring storage in SI-multiples of bits.
Which is the same thing Ethernet does with transfer rates, incidentally.
So really, just because a bit has two states doesn't mean that this somehow makes it easier to express number of bits in powers of two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641824</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269721200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's just settle this and be done with it, with the i = base 2, without it base 10. Just forget the lame names, and let the prefixes do the talking. MB = megabyte, MiB = megabyte. That's what I'm doing at least.</p></div><p>Actually, the binary multiples also have distinctive(but easily memorable) names, see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Mebibyte</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's just settle this and be done with it , with the i = base 2 , without it base 10 .
Just forget the lame names , and let the prefixes do the talking .
MB = megabyte , MiB = megabyte .
That 's what I 'm doing at least.Actually , the binary multiples also have distinctive ( but easily memorable ) names , see Mebibyte [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's just settle this and be done with it, with the i = base 2, without it base 10.
Just forget the lame names, and let the prefixes do the talking.
MB = megabyte, MiB = megabyte.
That's what I'm doing at least.Actually, the binary multiples also have distinctive(but easily memorable) names, see Mebibyte [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31650442</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269771780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Computers aren't not remotely consistent with themselves, a 100 Mbit LAN is 100,000,000 bits/second. "<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; They are not.   I have gotten 12.5MB/sec (not metric!) over 100mbps lan.  It is not 100,000,000 bits/second.  I think gigabit may have used "metric" gigabits, they were having a little trouble getting those last few mbps out of it.  The old serial stuff you'd divide by 10 to go from bits to bytes, but this was because it was using 8 data bits, one stop bit, one start bit.</p><p>"The 56k modem is 56,000 bits"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; But the serial port runs at 57,600 bytes per second, which<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/1024 is 56.25kbps.</p><p>"Hard drives too but they're hardly the only ones, floppies weren't even consistent with themselves most being 1.44*1000*1024 bytes."<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; No they weren't.   Oh wait they were.  Weird.  However for my hard drives, they use proper MBs, they just aren't as big as they were advertised to be.</p><p>"A particularly confusing item was codecs. Should they follow the "size" standard so a 128 kbit/s MP3 would take up 128 kbit/s, or the network standard so that a 128 kbit/s would take 128 kbit/s of network bandwidth?"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; They should use proper kbps.   Base 2.   That's what all the mp3 algorithms use, and I doubt anyone is going to want to deal with "131.072kbps" MP3s.   And it's using 128kbps of network bandwidth.  It's just your gigabit network really will carry only about 950mbps.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If these jokers want to redefine units, there better damn well be some way to make it use all base 2 units.  I will not have stupid base 10 file sized and such, this is not the natural unit of the computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Computers are n't not remotely consistent with themselves , a 100 Mbit LAN is 100,000,000 bits/second .
"           They are not .
I have gotten 12.5MB/sec ( not metric !
) over 100mbps lan .
It is not 100,000,000 bits/second .
I think gigabit may have used " metric " gigabits , they were having a little trouble getting those last few mbps out of it .
The old serial stuff you 'd divide by 10 to go from bits to bytes , but this was because it was using 8 data bits , one stop bit , one start bit .
" The 56k modem is 56,000 bits "           But the serial port runs at 57,600 bytes per second , which /1024 is 56.25kbps .
" Hard drives too but they 're hardly the only ones , floppies were n't even consistent with themselves most being 1.44 * 1000 * 1024 bytes .
"           No they were n't .
Oh wait they were .
Weird. However for my hard drives , they use proper MBs , they just are n't as big as they were advertised to be .
" A particularly confusing item was codecs .
Should they follow the " size " standard so a 128 kbit/s MP3 would take up 128 kbit/s , or the network standard so that a 128 kbit/s would take 128 kbit/s of network bandwidth ?
"             They should use proper kbps .
Base 2 .
That 's what all the mp3 algorithms use , and I doubt anyone is going to want to deal with " 131.072kbps " MP3s .
And it 's using 128kbps of network bandwidth .
It 's just your gigabit network really will carry only about 950mbps .
            If these jokers want to redefine units , there better damn well be some way to make it use all base 2 units .
I will not have stupid base 10 file sized and such , this is not the natural unit of the computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Computers aren't not remotely consistent with themselves, a 100 Mbit LAN is 100,000,000 bits/second.
"
          They are not.
I have gotten 12.5MB/sec (not metric!
) over 100mbps lan.
It is not 100,000,000 bits/second.
I think gigabit may have used "metric" gigabits, they were having a little trouble getting those last few mbps out of it.
The old serial stuff you'd divide by 10 to go from bits to bytes, but this was because it was using 8 data bits, one stop bit, one start bit.
"The 56k modem is 56,000 bits"
          But the serial port runs at 57,600 bytes per second, which /1024 is 56.25kbps.
"Hard drives too but they're hardly the only ones, floppies weren't even consistent with themselves most being 1.44*1000*1024 bytes.
"
          No they weren't.
Oh wait they were.
Weird.  However for my hard drives, they use proper MBs, they just aren't as big as they were advertised to be.
"A particularly confusing item was codecs.
Should they follow the "size" standard so a 128 kbit/s MP3 would take up 128 kbit/s, or the network standard so that a 128 kbit/s would take 128 kbit/s of network bandwidth?
"
            They should use proper kbps.
Base 2.
That's what all the mp3 algorithms use, and I doubt anyone is going to want to deal with "131.072kbps" MP3s.
And it's using 128kbps of network bandwidth.
It's just your gigabit network really will carry only about 950mbps.
            If these jokers want to redefine units, there better damn well be some way to make it use all base 2 units.
I will not have stupid base 10 file sized and such, this is not the natural unit of the computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641294</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>beelsebob</author>
	<datestamp>1269717180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>I've been using computers for 20+ years and I do \_not\_ want to change how I think file sizes, especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count. What's next? Imperial units for us Europeans?</em><br>Haha, so ironic.  Your current stance is *exactly* the current british stance - "We're not going to use the really consistent system because we've been using our system for 20+ years and we do \_not\_ want to change how we think of things".  What ubuntu has changed to is using the *SI* standard &ndash; you know, the metric system... that one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using computers for 20 + years and I do \ _not \ _ want to change how I think file sizes , especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count .
What 's next ?
Imperial units for us Europeans ? Haha , so ironic .
Your current stance is * exactly * the current british stance - " We 're not going to use the really consistent system because we 've been using our system for 20 + years and we do \ _not \ _ want to change how we think of things " .
What ubuntu has changed to is using the * SI * standard    you know , the metric system... that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using computers for 20+ years and I do \_not\_ want to change how I think file sizes, especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count.
What's next?
Imperial units for us Europeans?Haha, so ironic.
Your current stance is *exactly* the current british stance - "We're not going to use the really consistent system because we've been using our system for 20+ years and we do \_not\_ want to change how we think of things".
What ubuntu has changed to is using the *SI* standard – you know, the metric system... that one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643588</id>
	<title>I can count up to 35 on my fingers</title>
	<author>Pfhorrest</author>
	<datestamp>1269693780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;quote&gt;The reality is that base-10 is what people naturally use...&lt;/quote&gt;<br>&lt;p&gt;Not that it really affects your point, but base-10 is what people are &lt;em&gt;conditioned&lt;/em&gt; to use from childhood when we are taught to count only in base-10. Personally, I think a base-6 system would make a lot more sense, both for the same divisibility reasons many people advocate base-12 (6 is evenly divisible into both halves and thirds), but because you can count up to thirty-five (or "55" base-6) on your fingers if you use each hand for one digit.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reality is that base-10 is what people naturally use...Not that it really affects your point , but base-10 is what people are conditioned to use from childhood when we are taught to count only in base-10 .
Personally , I think a base-6 system would make a lot more sense , both for the same divisibility reasons many people advocate base-12 ( 6 is evenly divisible into both halves and thirds ) , but because you can count up to thirty-five ( or " 55 " base-6 ) on your fingers if you use each hand for one digit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reality is that base-10 is what people naturally use...Not that it really affects your point, but base-10 is what people are conditioned to use from childhood when we are taught to count only in base-10.
Personally, I think a base-6 system would make a lot more sense, both for the same divisibility reasons many people advocate base-12 (6 is evenly divisible into both halves and thirds), but because you can count up to thirty-five (or "55" base-6) on your fingers if you use each hand for one digit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643072</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269688260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bit and byte are not units in the sense like meter or any other of the SI units. It is more like some kind of package or container. If you really go SI you should drop the uni alltogether, because a simple count should be unitless.</p><p>Seriously, what's wrong with you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bit and byte are not units in the sense like meter or any other of the SI units .
It is more like some kind of package or container .
If you really go SI you should drop the uni alltogether , because a simple count should be unitless.Seriously , what 's wrong with you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bit and byte are not units in the sense like meter or any other of the SI units.
It is more like some kind of package or container.
If you really go SI you should drop the uni alltogether, because a simple count should be unitless.Seriously, what's wrong with you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642956</id>
	<title>Re:Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>diamondsw</author>
	<datestamp>1269687120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well--except that pesky material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1' state or a '0' state. Most people call that a 'bit'. Strangely enough, that 'binary' state is conducive to measuring in powers of two...</p></div><p>Pedantic <b>moron</b>. The number of states in a bit has nothing to do with measuring the capacity of a drive! What determines capacity (and thus measuring capacity, and units involved) is how many bits on the surface of a disk. Whereas in memory you will have memory subdividing and subdividing in nice multiples of 2 all the way down, a hard disk is a round surface that does not lend itself to perfect multiples of 2. It doesn't matter one whit if a bit on the drive is two different levels of magnetism or 7 (you didn't <b>really</b> think those were "ones" and "zeros" did you?), it has no bearing at all on how we measure the capacity of the drive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well--except that pesky material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1 ' state or a '0 ' state .
Most people call that a 'bit' .
Strangely enough , that 'binary ' state is conducive to measuring in powers of two...Pedantic moron .
The number of states in a bit has nothing to do with measuring the capacity of a drive !
What determines capacity ( and thus measuring capacity , and units involved ) is how many bits on the surface of a disk .
Whereas in memory you will have memory subdividing and subdividing in nice multiples of 2 all the way down , a hard disk is a round surface that does not lend itself to perfect multiples of 2 .
It does n't matter one whit if a bit on the drive is two different levels of magnetism or 7 ( you did n't really think those were " ones " and " zeros " did you ?
) , it has no bearing at all on how we measure the capacity of the drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well--except that pesky material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1' state or a '0' state.
Most people call that a 'bit'.
Strangely enough, that 'binary' state is conducive to measuring in powers of two...Pedantic moron.
The number of states in a bit has nothing to do with measuring the capacity of a drive!
What determines capacity (and thus measuring capacity, and units involved) is how many bits on the surface of a disk.
Whereas in memory you will have memory subdividing and subdividing in nice multiples of 2 all the way down, a hard disk is a round surface that does not lend itself to perfect multiples of 2.
It doesn't matter one whit if a bit on the drive is two different levels of magnetism or 7 (you didn't really think those were "ones" and "zeros" did you?
), it has no bearing at all on how we measure the capacity of the drive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31648282</id>
	<title>Re:Base-19 which base</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269799380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and those who confuse binary with ternary</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and those who confuse binary with ternary</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and those who confuse binary with ternary</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641212</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1269716640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then don't use a computer if you're too dense to figure out file sizes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then do n't use a computer if you 're too dense to figure out file sizes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then don't use a computer if you're too dense to figure out file sizes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642456</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269683160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Seriously, what's wrong with you?</p></div></blockquote><p>They're American. Units aren't <i>supposed</i> to make sense over there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , what 's wrong with you ? They 're American .
Units are n't supposed to make sense over there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, what's wrong with you?They're American.
Units aren't supposed to make sense over there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640318</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269711180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's next? Imperial units for us Europeans?</p></div><p>Quite the opposite. The imperial units are the base 2 ones. After all, kilo means 1000, not 1024, both in the original Greek and in the SI system that most of the world uses.</p><p>The HDD manufacturers were right (albeit for all the wrong reasons, of course). Good for Apple and Cannonical for recognizing this. I hope the rest of the world follows suit and becomes (SI, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE\_1541#Recommendations" title="wikipedia.org">IEEE, ISO/IEC</a> [wikipedia.org]) standards compliant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's next ?
Imperial units for us Europeans ? Quite the opposite .
The imperial units are the base 2 ones .
After all , kilo means 1000 , not 1024 , both in the original Greek and in the SI system that most of the world uses.The HDD manufacturers were right ( albeit for all the wrong reasons , of course ) .
Good for Apple and Cannonical for recognizing this .
I hope the rest of the world follows suit and becomes ( SI , IEEE , ISO/IEC [ wikipedia.org ] ) standards compliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's next?
Imperial units for us Europeans?Quite the opposite.
The imperial units are the base 2 ones.
After all, kilo means 1000, not 1024, both in the original Greek and in the SI system that most of the world uses.The HDD manufacturers were right (albeit for all the wrong reasons, of course).
Good for Apple and Cannonical for recognizing this.
I hope the rest of the world follows suit and becomes (SI, IEEE, ISO/IEC [wikipedia.org]) standards compliant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643750</id>
	<title>base-2 prefix is legacy</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1269695460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the old days when there was not much computational power available and the storage sizes where small, clever geeks decided that using base-2 to define kilo, mega etc. is good enough for the user. However, that deviated from the correct definition on base-10. The first to switch this where the HDD manufacturers, because it made their drives look bigger. But honestly it was still the right move. The advantage of using the correct SI definition is, that it is metric. And the metric system is definitely easier than something on base-2. Especially for normal humans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the old days when there was not much computational power available and the storage sizes where small , clever geeks decided that using base-2 to define kilo , mega etc .
is good enough for the user .
However , that deviated from the correct definition on base-10 .
The first to switch this where the HDD manufacturers , because it made their drives look bigger .
But honestly it was still the right move .
The advantage of using the correct SI definition is , that it is metric .
And the metric system is definitely easier than something on base-2 .
Especially for normal humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the old days when there was not much computational power available and the storage sizes where small, clever geeks decided that using base-2 to define kilo, mega etc.
is good enough for the user.
However, that deviated from the correct definition on base-10.
The first to switch this where the HDD manufacturers, because it made their drives look bigger.
But honestly it was still the right move.
The advantage of using the correct SI definition is, that it is metric.
And the metric system is definitely easier than something on base-2.
Especially for normal humans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642318</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>Cyrano de Maniac</author>
	<datestamp>1269681840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because last time I checked "byte" isn't a friggin' SI unit of measurement.  Meters, Litres, Grams, Kelvin, Joules, Watts, Pascals, yes.  Bytes, eggs, toes, dollars, no.</p><p>I'm all in favor of the SI system, and wish we here in the U.S. would cut over.  But keep your SI prefix hands off of my non-SI units.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because last time I checked " byte " is n't a friggin ' SI unit of measurement .
Meters , Litres , Grams , Kelvin , Joules , Watts , Pascals , yes .
Bytes , eggs , toes , dollars , no.I 'm all in favor of the SI system , and wish we here in the U.S. would cut over .
But keep your SI prefix hands off of my non-SI units .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because last time I checked "byte" isn't a friggin' SI unit of measurement.
Meters, Litres, Grams, Kelvin, Joules, Watts, Pascals, yes.
Bytes, eggs, toes, dollars, no.I'm all in favor of the SI system, and wish we here in the U.S. would cut over.
But keep your SI prefix hands off of my non-SI units.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640782</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1269713940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``The most annoying? That nobody has hacked Snow Leopard to restore real units.''</p><p>I would hazard a guess that this is because it's not open source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` The most annoying ?
That nobody has hacked Snow Leopard to restore real units .
''I would hazard a guess that this is because it 's not open source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``The most annoying?
That nobody has hacked Snow Leopard to restore real units.
''I would hazard a guess that this is because it's not open source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641428</id>
	<title>New unit names are still ambiguous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269718260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But as a geek myself with an obsession for clear and precise terminology, I welcome the change.  No longer will I wonder if someone's talking about KB vs. KiB, because it'll be consistent and explicit, at least on the computer systems developed by flexible-enough-minded people who are both willing to change and willing to correct a long-confusing problem.</p></div><p>Except it's not clear and precise.  Instead of replacing the ambiguous unit names (KB, MB), you're keeping them and adding some new terms (KB + KiB, MB + MiB). Reusing the old names (KB, MB) in the new naming system means that you still can't immediately tell which OSes, programs, specifications, or written examples have been adjusted or not.</p><p>If the terminology were clear and precise, you could unambiguously know how many bytes are in a "1 MB" file.<br>Since the old and new naming systems share unit names, you cannot.</p><p>It also doesn't help that the new unit names sound ridiculous.  Ignoring that is like saying looks don't matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But as a geek myself with an obsession for clear and precise terminology , I welcome the change .
No longer will I wonder if someone 's talking about KB vs. KiB , because it 'll be consistent and explicit , at least on the computer systems developed by flexible-enough-minded people who are both willing to change and willing to correct a long-confusing problem.Except it 's not clear and precise .
Instead of replacing the ambiguous unit names ( KB , MB ) , you 're keeping them and adding some new terms ( KB + KiB , MB + MiB ) .
Reusing the old names ( KB , MB ) in the new naming system means that you still ca n't immediately tell which OSes , programs , specifications , or written examples have been adjusted or not.If the terminology were clear and precise , you could unambiguously know how many bytes are in a " 1 MB " file.Since the old and new naming systems share unit names , you can not.It also does n't help that the new unit names sound ridiculous .
Ignoring that is like saying looks do n't matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But as a geek myself with an obsession for clear and precise terminology, I welcome the change.
No longer will I wonder if someone's talking about KB vs. KiB, because it'll be consistent and explicit, at least on the computer systems developed by flexible-enough-minded people who are both willing to change and willing to correct a long-confusing problem.Except it's not clear and precise.
Instead of replacing the ambiguous unit names (KB, MB), you're keeping them and adding some new terms (KB + KiB, MB + MiB).
Reusing the old names (KB, MB) in the new naming system means that you still can't immediately tell which OSes, programs, specifications, or written examples have been adjusted or not.If the terminology were clear and precise, you could unambiguously know how many bytes are in a "1 MB" file.Since the old and new naming systems share unit names, you cannot.It also doesn't help that the new unit names sound ridiculous.
Ignoring that is like saying looks don't matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642370</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>hatten</author>
	<datestamp>1269682260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can change it back easily in ubuntu, although base-10 is the default.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can change it back easily in ubuntu , although base-10 is the default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can change it back easily in ubuntu, although base-10 is the default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645372</id>
	<title>Re:And I thought geeks were supposed to be FLEXIBL</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1269714840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a geek, I am in favor of change... for the better. Geek and pedantic troll are not synonymous. I do not care about grammar distinctions that do not add a useful and functional clarity just for their own sake. I do not support changes to existing well defined and well understood prefixes unless there is a purpose.</p><p>Satisfying the anal few by implementing technical correctness of a prefix is NOT a fair trade for breaking every spec of existing computer literature and the majority of software. It is not a valid justification for breaking the math used and making it more difficult. Your pedantic correctness will decrease the efficiency of IT as a whole.</p><p>Sorry if you want to pretend people are somehow clinging to old ways. I guess some of us fuddy duddies don't want to get behind the idea of breaking the existing functionality with zero functional gain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a geek , I am in favor of change... for the better .
Geek and pedantic troll are not synonymous .
I do not care about grammar distinctions that do not add a useful and functional clarity just for their own sake .
I do not support changes to existing well defined and well understood prefixes unless there is a purpose.Satisfying the anal few by implementing technical correctness of a prefix is NOT a fair trade for breaking every spec of existing computer literature and the majority of software .
It is not a valid justification for breaking the math used and making it more difficult .
Your pedantic correctness will decrease the efficiency of IT as a whole.Sorry if you want to pretend people are somehow clinging to old ways .
I guess some of us fuddy duddies do n't want to get behind the idea of breaking the existing functionality with zero functional gain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a geek, I am in favor of change... for the better.
Geek and pedantic troll are not synonymous.
I do not care about grammar distinctions that do not add a useful and functional clarity just for their own sake.
I do not support changes to existing well defined and well understood prefixes unless there is a purpose.Satisfying the anal few by implementing technical correctness of a prefix is NOT a fair trade for breaking every spec of existing computer literature and the majority of software.
It is not a valid justification for breaking the math used and making it more difficult.
Your pedantic correctness will decrease the efficiency of IT as a whole.Sorry if you want to pretend people are somehow clinging to old ways.
I guess some of us fuddy duddies don't want to get behind the idea of breaking the existing functionality with zero functional gain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641414</id>
	<title>Dumbing Down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269718140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is preposterous.
</p><p>It's quite simple. A kilobyte is 2 to the power of 10 bytes, i.e. 1024 bytes.
</p><p>A megabyte is 2 to the power of 20 bytes.
</p><p>A gigabyte is 2 to the power of 30 bytes.
</p><p>It's very easy to understand and to remember. The "nice round 10s" are in the indices.
</p><p>Whatever next? Ten bits in a byte? Or 8-bit bytes only allowed to hold 100? Mind you, with a 10-bit byte they could enforce a range of 0-999 or -500 to +499. *sigh*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is preposterous .
It 's quite simple .
A kilobyte is 2 to the power of 10 bytes , i.e .
1024 bytes .
A megabyte is 2 to the power of 20 bytes .
A gigabyte is 2 to the power of 30 bytes .
It 's very easy to understand and to remember .
The " nice round 10s " are in the indices .
Whatever next ?
Ten bits in a byte ?
Or 8-bit bytes only allowed to hold 100 ?
Mind you , with a 10-bit byte they could enforce a range of 0-999 or -500 to + 499 .
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is preposterous.
It's quite simple.
A kilobyte is 2 to the power of 10 bytes, i.e.
1024 bytes.
A megabyte is 2 to the power of 20 bytes.
A gigabyte is 2 to the power of 30 bytes.
It's very easy to understand and to remember.
The "nice round 10s" are in the indices.
Whatever next?
Ten bits in a byte?
Or 8-bit bytes only allowed to hold 100?
Mind you, with a 10-bit byte they could enforce a range of 0-999 or -500 to +499.
*sigh*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640080</id>
	<title>I'm just waiting to hear...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269709920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I upgraded/switched to Ubuntu and it made my hard drive bigger!"

*facepalm* Great.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I upgraded/switched to Ubuntu and it made my hard drive bigger !
" * facepalm * Great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I upgraded/switched to Ubuntu and it made my hard drive bigger!
"

*facepalm* Great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31656362</id>
	<title>Comedy Central</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269874140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love reading all these comments- they're hilarious. It's better than Comedy Central.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love reading all these comments- they 're hilarious .
It 's better than Comedy Central .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love reading all these comments- they're hilarious.
It's better than Comedy Central.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643680</id>
	<title>Re:Bye Ubuntu, was nice knowing you.</title>
	<author>Artemis3</author>
	<datestamp>1269694500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the policy and consider it correct.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There are two ways to fix the abuse of the SI standard for base-2:</p><ol> <li> Correct the application to divide by 1,000 and keep on using SI prefixes.</li><li> Correct the application to keep on dividing by 1,024 but use the IEC prefixes.</li> </ol></div><p>So, use the IEC prefixes and you don't need to change much. Its just a little i.</p><p>Furthermore, this was approved in 1998. Don't you think you had enough time to adapt by now?<br><a href="http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html" title="nist.gov">http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html</a> [nist.gov]</p><p>I'm sure there are more distros and programs implementing this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the policy and consider it correct.There are two ways to fix the abuse of the SI standard for base-2 : Correct the application to divide by 1,000 and keep on using SI prefixes .
Correct the application to keep on dividing by 1,024 but use the IEC prefixes .
So , use the IEC prefixes and you do n't need to change much .
Its just a little i.Furthermore , this was approved in 1998 .
Do n't you think you had enough time to adapt by now ? http : //physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html [ nist.gov ] I 'm sure there are more distros and programs implementing this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the policy and consider it correct.There are two ways to fix the abuse of the SI standard for base-2:  Correct the application to divide by 1,000 and keep on using SI prefixes.
Correct the application to keep on dividing by 1,024 but use the IEC prefixes.
So, use the IEC prefixes and you don't need to change much.
Its just a little i.Furthermore, this was approved in 1998.
Don't you think you had enough time to adapt by now?http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html [nist.gov]I'm sure there are more distros and programs implementing this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642486</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269683340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right.  Unfortunately, however, HDD manufacturers had reason to muddy the waters, and they pointed out the technical inconsistency (to their benefit), so the waters were muddy.</p><p>I liked the old base-2 system, but it had obvious long-term impacts versus the base-10 system.  What I really couldn't stand was the ambiguity of the definition of kB.  Since we now have binary prefixes, let's use them for binary purposes and restore the accuracy for the SI unit system.  It's a win-win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
Unfortunately , however , HDD manufacturers had reason to muddy the waters , and they pointed out the technical inconsistency ( to their benefit ) , so the waters were muddy.I liked the old base-2 system , but it had obvious long-term impacts versus the base-10 system .
What I really could n't stand was the ambiguity of the definition of kB .
Since we now have binary prefixes , let 's use them for binary purposes and restore the accuracy for the SI unit system .
It 's a win-win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
Unfortunately, however, HDD manufacturers had reason to muddy the waters, and they pointed out the technical inconsistency (to their benefit), so the waters were muddy.I liked the old base-2 system, but it had obvious long-term impacts versus the base-10 system.
What I really couldn't stand was the ambiguity of the definition of kB.
Since we now have binary prefixes, let's use them for binary purposes and restore the accuracy for the SI unit system.
It's a win-win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640576</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1269712500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>K isn't a prefix, it's a fundamental unit: Kelvin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>K is n't a prefix , it 's a fundamental unit : Kelvin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>K isn't a prefix, it's a fundamental unit: Kelvin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640872</id>
	<title>Re:Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>Island Admin</author>
	<datestamp>1269714420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, software is base-2.  Hence now we are going to have the following interesting things in documentation:<br> <br>

Max File Size: 2.199023255552 TB<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... As the storage will always be in words, double words, etc. which are based on base-2.  <br>It does not make sense to me to use KiB and kB, etc as it will not reduce the confusion with the average user.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , software is base-2 .
Hence now we are going to have the following interesting things in documentation : Max File Size : 2.199023255552 TB .... As the storage will always be in words , double words , etc .
which are based on base-2 .
It does not make sense to me to use KiB and kB , etc as it will not reduce the confusion with the average user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, software is base-2.
Hence now we are going to have the following interesting things in documentation: 

Max File Size: 2.199023255552 TB .... As the storage will always be in words, double words, etc.
which are based on base-2.
It does not make sense to me to use KiB and kB, etc as it will not reduce the confusion with the average user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640642</id>
	<title>How about connection speeds?</title>
	<author>Chemisor</author>
	<datestamp>1269712800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be much more interested in having people stop using bits for measuring connection speed. How long will it take you to download a 15MB file over a megabit connection? Do you have the answer yet, punk? Huh? Huh? Do you feel lucky?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be much more interested in having people stop using bits for measuring connection speed .
How long will it take you to download a 15MB file over a megabit connection ?
Do you have the answer yet , punk ?
Huh ? Huh ?
Do you feel lucky ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be much more interested in having people stop using bits for measuring connection speed.
How long will it take you to download a 15MB file over a megabit connection?
Do you have the answer yet, punk?
Huh? Huh?
Do you feel lucky?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646070</id>
	<title>Re:This is the right way to do it</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1269770640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>HDD manufacturers are prohibited by local and international law from using base 2 units as the only or main size statement.</p></div></blockquote><p>Bullshit.  Since when are HDD manufactures legally required to even note the capacity?  Sure, we require that for food and the like, but when you go out and buy a TV, you won't see a weight label.</p><p>If there was a legal issue with non-SI units, then HDD manufactures are screwed for using base-8 BYTES instead of notating everything in BITS.</p><blockquote><div><p>While a HDD can have an arbitrary size</p></div></blockquote><p>It can, TODAY.  However, it wasn't long ago that Cyl/Heads/Sec restricted HDDs to very few specific size classes.</p><blockquote><div><p>I do not understand why so many people cling to a mistake. Grow up!</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not a mistake.  It's the fundamental difference in a base-2 machine versus a base-10 world.  The base-10 size of a HDD is useless.  Using base-10 is merely forcing people to convert the numbers.  When you start looking at non-text files in a decimal-coded-binary editor, let me know.</p><p>There wouldn't be nearly so much resistance if not for the fact that manufacturers insist on using the SAME NOTATION.  If they'd have chosen different prefixes to note the numbers were base-10, everyone would be fine, there would be no confusion.  Now, you have to guess which notation is in-use.</p><p>I would just like to follow up by saying that your use of the English language is greatly mistaken, as have most others, for several hundred years.  Starting tomorrow, several large companies will revert back to the proper (old) definitions for all words in the English language.  Don't be upset at us, after all, we're just correcting an old mistake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>HDD manufacturers are prohibited by local and international law from using base 2 units as the only or main size statement.Bullshit .
Since when are HDD manufactures legally required to even note the capacity ?
Sure , we require that for food and the like , but when you go out and buy a TV , you wo n't see a weight label.If there was a legal issue with non-SI units , then HDD manufactures are screwed for using base-8 BYTES instead of notating everything in BITS.While a HDD can have an arbitrary sizeIt can , TODAY .
However , it was n't long ago that Cyl/Heads/Sec restricted HDDs to very few specific size classes.I do not understand why so many people cling to a mistake .
Grow up ! It 's not a mistake .
It 's the fundamental difference in a base-2 machine versus a base-10 world .
The base-10 size of a HDD is useless .
Using base-10 is merely forcing people to convert the numbers .
When you start looking at non-text files in a decimal-coded-binary editor , let me know.There would n't be nearly so much resistance if not for the fact that manufacturers insist on using the SAME NOTATION .
If they 'd have chosen different prefixes to note the numbers were base-10 , everyone would be fine , there would be no confusion .
Now , you have to guess which notation is in-use.I would just like to follow up by saying that your use of the English language is greatly mistaken , as have most others , for several hundred years .
Starting tomorrow , several large companies will revert back to the proper ( old ) definitions for all words in the English language .
Do n't be upset at us , after all , we 're just correcting an old mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDD manufacturers are prohibited by local and international law from using base 2 units as the only or main size statement.Bullshit.
Since when are HDD manufactures legally required to even note the capacity?
Sure, we require that for food and the like, but when you go out and buy a TV, you won't see a weight label.If there was a legal issue with non-SI units, then HDD manufactures are screwed for using base-8 BYTES instead of notating everything in BITS.While a HDD can have an arbitrary sizeIt can, TODAY.
However, it wasn't long ago that Cyl/Heads/Sec restricted HDDs to very few specific size classes.I do not understand why so many people cling to a mistake.
Grow up!It's not a mistake.
It's the fundamental difference in a base-2 machine versus a base-10 world.
The base-10 size of a HDD is useless.
Using base-10 is merely forcing people to convert the numbers.
When you start looking at non-text files in a decimal-coded-binary editor, let me know.There wouldn't be nearly so much resistance if not for the fact that manufacturers insist on using the SAME NOTATION.
If they'd have chosen different prefixes to note the numbers were base-10, everyone would be fine, there would be no confusion.
Now, you have to guess which notation is in-use.I would just like to follow up by saying that your use of the English language is greatly mistaken, as have most others, for several hundred years.
Starting tomorrow, several large companies will revert back to the proper (old) definitions for all words in the English language.
Don't be upset at us, after all, we're just correcting an old mistake.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641888</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269721860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been using computers for 20+ years and I do \_not\_ want to change how I think file sizes</p></div><p>Just forget about it - you'll be dead soon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using computers for 20 + years and I do \ _not \ _ want to change how I think file sizesJust forget about it - you 'll be dead soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using computers for 20+ years and I do \_not\_ want to change how I think file sizesJust forget about it - you'll be dead soon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640022</id>
	<title>Stupid.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269709500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what's the rational for changing from a system that nearly every operating system, program, and computer on the planet uses to represent file size?</p><p>The applications themselves can display the file size however they please.  So in all likelyhood individual applications are still going to use the base-2 system.  Isn't that more than a little stupid to have two different units that most people don't even know there ARE two units to represent file size?</p><p>This will only lead to confusion, and has essentially no upside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what 's the rational for changing from a system that nearly every operating system , program , and computer on the planet uses to represent file size ? The applications themselves can display the file size however they please .
So in all likelyhood individual applications are still going to use the base-2 system .
Is n't that more than a little stupid to have two different units that most people do n't even know there ARE two units to represent file size ? This will only lead to confusion , and has essentially no upside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what's the rational for changing from a system that nearly every operating system, program, and computer on the planet uses to represent file size?The applications themselves can display the file size however they please.
So in all likelyhood individual applications are still going to use the base-2 system.
Isn't that more than a little stupid to have two different units that most people don't even know there ARE two units to represent file size?This will only lead to confusion, and has essentially no upside.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644456</id>
	<title>Re:It's what people use naturally</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1269703440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why I use ls -lh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I use ls -lh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I use ls -lh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639942</id>
	<title>Cannonical is just trolling us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269709020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, screwing with GUI buttons, now this? Mark Shuttleworth, I'm calling you out on your BS<br>
&nbsp; <br>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , screwing with GUI buttons , now this ?
Mark Shuttleworth , I 'm calling you out on your BS   ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, screwing with GUI buttons, now this?
Mark Shuttleworth, I'm calling you out on your BS
  ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643192</id>
	<title>Re:And I thought geeks were supposed to be FLEXIBL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269689040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am soooooo happy that I upgraded my computer to 4.29GB of RAM. I got 2 banks empty and maybe I put in two of my old 537MB modules to get a sane number of 5.37GB of RAM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am soooooo happy that I upgraded my computer to 4.29GB of RAM .
I got 2 banks empty and maybe I put in two of my old 537MB modules to get a sane number of 5.37GB of RAM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am soooooo happy that I upgraded my computer to 4.29GB of RAM.
I got 2 banks empty and maybe I put in two of my old 537MB modules to get a sane number of 5.37GB of RAM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641590</id>
	<title>Re:Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1269719520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There should be one unit for usage, independent if the usage is with RAM of HD. Otherwise you will get confused if there is a difference in usage for memory and for swap. And what if you place<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/tmp or any other directory (or file) not on HD, but on memory?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be one unit for usage , independent if the usage is with RAM of HD .
Otherwise you will get confused if there is a difference in usage for memory and for swap .
And what if you place /tmp or any other directory ( or file ) not on HD , but on memory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should be one unit for usage, independent if the usage is with RAM of HD.
Otherwise you will get confused if there is a difference in usage for memory and for swap.
And what if you place /tmp or any other directory (or file) not on HD, but on memory?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640230</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269710760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CMD+I to open the info window, which shows you the exact number of bytes. If file size concerns you that much, you ought to know it to the byte, not to the thousandth or millionth byte.</p><p>For example: 2.56 GB on disk (2,561,880,064 bytes)</p><p>Makes much more sense than 2.56*1024*1024. Join the rest of the world with the SI units.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CMD + I to open the info window , which shows you the exact number of bytes .
If file size concerns you that much , you ought to know it to the byte , not to the thousandth or millionth byte.For example : 2.56 GB on disk ( 2,561,880,064 bytes ) Makes much more sense than 2.56 * 1024 * 1024 .
Join the rest of the world with the SI units .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CMD+I to open the info window, which shows you the exact number of bytes.
If file size concerns you that much, you ought to know it to the byte, not to the thousandth or millionth byte.For example: 2.56 GB on disk (2,561,880,064 bytes)Makes much more sense than 2.56*1024*1024.
Join the rest of the world with the SI units.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641620</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>kevingolding2001</author>
	<datestamp>1269719640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Before, the situation was simple.
<br> <br>
Everything not binary-represented-information related used base-10.
<br> <br>
Everything binary-represented-information related (computing related, <b>bandwidth</b> related etc) used base 2,</p></div><p>
According to Wikipedia, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_device\_bandwidths" title="wikipedia.org">big bandwidth</a> [wikipedia.org] is measured in base 10.<br> <br>
I guess it was not so simple after all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before , the situation was simple .
Everything not binary-represented-information related used base-10 .
Everything binary-represented-information related ( computing related , bandwidth related etc ) used base 2 , According to Wikipedia , big bandwidth [ wikipedia.org ] is measured in base 10 .
I guess it was not so simple after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before, the situation was simple.
Everything not binary-represented-information related used base-10.
Everything binary-represented-information related (computing related, bandwidth related etc) used base 2,
According to Wikipedia, big bandwidth [wikipedia.org] is measured in base 10.
I guess it was not so simple after all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644682</id>
	<title>I don't understand</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1269706380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't they use the LoC file size unit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they use the LoC file size unit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they use the LoC file size unit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643896</id>
	<title>Re:It's what people use naturally</title>
	<author>Twinbee</author>
	<datestamp>1269696900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.</p><p>It always surprises me how many say they instinctively prefer working with other bases, when that can't possibly be the case for so many everyday examples.</p><p>(This coming from a person who wishes the world would switch to base 8, 12 or 16, but I like consistency even more).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly.It always surprises me how many say they instinctively prefer working with other bases , when that ca n't possibly be the case for so many everyday examples .
( This coming from a person who wishes the world would switch to base 8 , 12 or 16 , but I like consistency even more ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.It always surprises me how many say they instinctively prefer working with other bases, when that can't possibly be the case for so many everyday examples.
(This coming from a person who wishes the world would switch to base 8, 12 or 16, but I like consistency even more).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643212</id>
	<title>Flexible sizes?</title>
	<author>Hangin10</author>
	<datestamp>1269689280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't they let us change what units we want to see file sizes in?</p><p>Maybe I want all my file sizes in multiples of linear block size for the device in question (I only ever use desktop PCs where the devices have blocks of either 512 or 2048 bytes), or define custom units of the number of 128bit double quadwords in base 6.</p><p>Why not let the user decide? A program that opens a file is still going to get the number of bytes anyway (it can query the operating system to convert between the custom units).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't they let us change what units we want to see file sizes in ? Maybe I want all my file sizes in multiples of linear block size for the device in question ( I only ever use desktop PCs where the devices have blocks of either 512 or 2048 bytes ) , or define custom units of the number of 128bit double quadwords in base 6.Why not let the user decide ?
A program that opens a file is still going to get the number of bytes anyway ( it can query the operating system to convert between the custom units ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't they let us change what units we want to see file sizes in?Maybe I want all my file sizes in multiples of linear block size for the device in question (I only ever use desktop PCs where the devices have blocks of either 512 or 2048 bytes), or define custom units of the number of 128bit double quadwords in base 6.Why not let the user decide?
A program that opens a file is still going to get the number of bytes anyway (it can query the operating system to convert between the custom units).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643078</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>quacking duck</author>
	<datestamp>1269688320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I work mostly on OS X and this so-called feature annoys me to no end. I do not know the size of my files anymore, I have to go to the terminal just to know the size of a file (bash hasn't been polluted by this feature).</p><p>I've been using computers for 20+ years and I do \_not\_ want to change how I think file sizes, especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count.</p></div><p>And this is precisely the attitude that keeps America using the imperial system. Not that you're necessarily American yourself, but it's that attitude and unwillingness to change to something "better" simply because you've used a different system all your life.</p><p>I submitted the <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/08/29/1321253/Apple-Kicks-HDD-Marketing-Debate-Into-High-Gear" title="slashdot.org">original Slashdot story about Snow Leopard changing the prefix definitions</a> [slashdot.org], and my position (though not explicitly stated in that story) is that it was a mistake by computer science to have co-opted the kilo-, mega- etc prefixes for binary measurements. It was convenient for them at the time to avoid creating new prefixes, and it was wrong for them to do so, so this is now being corrected. That this happened to be spearheaded by hard drive marketing is incidental.</p><p>What's unfortunate is that for the next few years at least, there will be inconsistency as some OSes use the decimal prefix system while others continue using the binary one. There will be some confusion in the market place, but it's unlikely any disaster will occur because of it (like mixing imperial and metric units on one of the Mars probes).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work mostly on OS X and this so-called feature annoys me to no end .
I do not know the size of my files anymore , I have to go to the terminal just to know the size of a file ( bash has n't been polluted by this feature ) .I 've been using computers for 20 + years and I do \ _not \ _ want to change how I think file sizes , especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count.And this is precisely the attitude that keeps America using the imperial system .
Not that you 're necessarily American yourself , but it 's that attitude and unwillingness to change to something " better " simply because you 've used a different system all your life.I submitted the original Slashdot story about Snow Leopard changing the prefix definitions [ slashdot.org ] , and my position ( though not explicitly stated in that story ) is that it was a mistake by computer science to have co-opted the kilo- , mega- etc prefixes for binary measurements .
It was convenient for them at the time to avoid creating new prefixes , and it was wrong for them to do so , so this is now being corrected .
That this happened to be spearheaded by hard drive marketing is incidental.What 's unfortunate is that for the next few years at least , there will be inconsistency as some OSes use the decimal prefix system while others continue using the binary one .
There will be some confusion in the market place , but it 's unlikely any disaster will occur because of it ( like mixing imperial and metric units on one of the Mars probes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work mostly on OS X and this so-called feature annoys me to no end.
I do not know the size of my files anymore, I have to go to the terminal just to know the size of a file (bash hasn't been polluted by this feature).I've been using computers for 20+ years and I do \_not\_ want to change how I think file sizes, especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count.And this is precisely the attitude that keeps America using the imperial system.
Not that you're necessarily American yourself, but it's that attitude and unwillingness to change to something "better" simply because you've used a different system all your life.I submitted the original Slashdot story about Snow Leopard changing the prefix definitions [slashdot.org], and my position (though not explicitly stated in that story) is that it was a mistake by computer science to have co-opted the kilo-, mega- etc prefixes for binary measurements.
It was convenient for them at the time to avoid creating new prefixes, and it was wrong for them to do so, so this is now being corrected.
That this happened to be spearheaded by hard drive marketing is incidental.What's unfortunate is that for the next few years at least, there will be inconsistency as some OSes use the decimal prefix system while others continue using the binary one.
There will be some confusion in the market place, but it's unlikely any disaster will occur because of it (like mixing imperial and metric units on one of the Mars probes).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644146</id>
	<title>2^8</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1269699840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the those that still think of the kilo as meaning 2^10 should know that 10 is not a power of two. All computers and the computers before that used 2^8 and 2^16 much more often. I therefore suggest you define 2^8 to be the new kilo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the those that still think of the kilo as meaning 2 ^ 10 should know that 10 is not a power of two .
All computers and the computers before that used 2 ^ 8 and 2 ^ 16 much more often .
I therefore suggest you define 2 ^ 8 to be the new kilo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the those that still think of the kilo as meaning 2^10 should know that 10 is not a power of two.
All computers and the computers before that used 2^8 and 2^16 much more often.
I therefore suggest you define 2^8 to be the new kilo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643848</id>
	<title>Old-School is wrong...</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1269696600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Kilo" meant a factor of 1000, long before bits and bytes came... the pioneers of computing just called 2^10=1024 bytes a kilobyte, because 1024 "is nearly" 1000... but if we want to work precisely and consistently (like we have to, in science), then we CAN'T use the same prefix for different things in very close fields of research.<br> <br>

saying "kilo" for a factor of 1024 is just wrong, because kilo means 1000 - and it is totally correct, to clean this mess up and rename the factor of 1024 to "KIBI", 1048576 to "MEBI" etc, although this means adjustment for all of us. Future generations will thank us for leaving science tidy...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Kilo " meant a factor of 1000 , long before bits and bytes came... the pioneers of computing just called 2 ^ 10 = 1024 bytes a kilobyte , because 1024 " is nearly " 1000... but if we want to work precisely and consistently ( like we have to , in science ) , then we CA N'T use the same prefix for different things in very close fields of research .
saying " kilo " for a factor of 1024 is just wrong , because kilo means 1000 - and it is totally correct , to clean this mess up and rename the factor of 1024 to " KIBI " , 1048576 to " MEBI " etc , although this means adjustment for all of us .
Future generations will thank us for leaving science tidy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Kilo" meant a factor of 1000, long before bits and bytes came... the pioneers of computing just called 2^10=1024 bytes a kilobyte, because 1024 "is nearly" 1000... but if we want to work precisely and consistently (like we have to, in science), then we CAN'T use the same prefix for different things in very close fields of research.
saying "kilo" for a factor of 1024 is just wrong, because kilo means 1000 - and it is totally correct, to clean this mess up and rename the factor of 1024 to "KIBI", 1048576 to "MEBI" etc, although this means adjustment for all of us.
Future generations will thank us for leaving science tidy...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641654</id>
	<title>Re:And I thought geeks were supposed to be FLEXIBL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269719940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Switching terminology is painful, more than most people realize. Switching for common users makes little difference, switching for IT is a pain but not too bad, switching for Engineering is really bad.</p><p>I have never seen an engineering error due to confusing base 2 and base 10. It is strange and inconsistent but it is part of engineering terminology -- you don't change that easily. In engineering, I always know exactly what 1K means, even though it is dependent on context. This is normal; common language is even more inconsistent but works out due to using context. A single word often has different meanings. People handle this just fine.</p><p>Clearly the current system could be better. We still need base 2 units but they shouldn't be named the same as base 10. However there is are many things in engineering that are confusing due to historical accident. As long as they aren't too problematic, we don't change it because the change would be worse. This is really common in engineering -- we still use x86 instructions!</p><p>In engineering you have to make trade-offs; nothing will ever be perfect. The bad system is acceptably bad. Changing the terminology because it confuses a few people where it doesn't really matter is poor engineering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Switching terminology is painful , more than most people realize .
Switching for common users makes little difference , switching for IT is a pain but not too bad , switching for Engineering is really bad.I have never seen an engineering error due to confusing base 2 and base 10 .
It is strange and inconsistent but it is part of engineering terminology -- you do n't change that easily .
In engineering , I always know exactly what 1K means , even though it is dependent on context .
This is normal ; common language is even more inconsistent but works out due to using context .
A single word often has different meanings .
People handle this just fine.Clearly the current system could be better .
We still need base 2 units but they should n't be named the same as base 10 .
However there is are many things in engineering that are confusing due to historical accident .
As long as they are n't too problematic , we do n't change it because the change would be worse .
This is really common in engineering -- we still use x86 instructions ! In engineering you have to make trade-offs ; nothing will ever be perfect .
The bad system is acceptably bad .
Changing the terminology because it confuses a few people where it does n't really matter is poor engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Switching terminology is painful, more than most people realize.
Switching for common users makes little difference, switching for IT is a pain but not too bad, switching for Engineering is really bad.I have never seen an engineering error due to confusing base 2 and base 10.
It is strange and inconsistent but it is part of engineering terminology -- you don't change that easily.
In engineering, I always know exactly what 1K means, even though it is dependent on context.
This is normal; common language is even more inconsistent but works out due to using context.
A single word often has different meanings.
People handle this just fine.Clearly the current system could be better.
We still need base 2 units but they shouldn't be named the same as base 10.
However there is are many things in engineering that are confusing due to historical accident.
As long as they aren't too problematic, we don't change it because the change would be worse.
This is really common in engineering -- we still use x86 instructions!In engineering you have to make trade-offs; nothing will ever be perfect.
The bad system is acceptably bad.
Changing the terminology because it confuses a few people where it doesn't really matter is poor engineering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642708</id>
	<title>This is only about display!</title>
	<author>FoolishOwl</author>
	<datestamp>1269684960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd be doing the internal calculations in exact numbers anyway. It's only when you get to the point of presenting output to the user that you'd need to approximate and use the correct units.</p><p>Shell scripters might have some extra work, but we're used to dealing with that sort of problem anyway.</p><p>In general, shifting to accepted standards is a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd be doing the internal calculations in exact numbers anyway .
It 's only when you get to the point of presenting output to the user that you 'd need to approximate and use the correct units.Shell scripters might have some extra work , but we 're used to dealing with that sort of problem anyway.In general , shifting to accepted standards is a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd be doing the internal calculations in exact numbers anyway.
It's only when you get to the point of presenting output to the user that you'd need to approximate and use the correct units.Shell scripters might have some extra work, but we're used to dealing with that sort of problem anyway.In general, shifting to accepted standards is a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31660722</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269893100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, right. try walking around and talking to people in "kibibidibibytes" and "mibizibilibibytes" - THAT will help you to socialise.</p><p>could as well wear those plastic costumes guys from "dude, where's my car?" had.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , right .
try walking around and talking to people in " kibibidibibytes " and " mibizibilibibytes " - THAT will help you to socialise.could as well wear those plastic costumes guys from " dude , where 's my car ?
" had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, right.
try walking around and talking to people in "kibibidibibytes" and "mibizibilibibytes" - THAT will help you to socialise.could as well wear those plastic costumes guys from "dude, where's my car?
" had.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642012</id>
	<title>Re:This is the right way to do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269722640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I was trying to improperly cram the kilobyte into the SI framework, I'd be more worried about the byte than the kilo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was trying to improperly cram the kilobyte into the SI framework , I 'd be more worried about the byte than the kilo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was trying to improperly cram the kilobyte into the SI framework, I'd be more worried about the byte than the kilo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31653084</id>
	<title>Thats it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269795360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm creating a fork ubuntu-no-SI linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm creating a fork ubuntu-no-SI linux ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm creating a fork ubuntu-no-SI linux ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31654472</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>disi</author>
	<datestamp>1269855660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a good point, but the wrong reason.<br>
Just because you don't want to change your behaviour is not important, new generations will not care what you thought back then.<br>
<br>
For me it is important, that I know how much space is taken and if the file still fits. Everything else makes the files on the computer abstact and you don't really know what you actual do on a computer.<br>
Some examples:<br>
1. hiding part of the filename on the filesystem (file extensions)<br>
2. index files, so you don't know where they are actual stored anymore<br>
3. store files you downloaded from the internet to view them in your browser (temp internet files) in a database<br>
4. change the actual file size to some rounded number in base10<br>
<br>
Change is good, but some of the new "inventions" makes you learn bullshit and stuff that is just not true. This is just another attempt to make the computer more like a toaster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a good point , but the wrong reason .
Just because you do n't want to change your behaviour is not important , new generations will not care what you thought back then .
For me it is important , that I know how much space is taken and if the file still fits .
Everything else makes the files on the computer abstact and you do n't really know what you actual do on a computer .
Some examples : 1. hiding part of the filename on the filesystem ( file extensions ) 2. index files , so you do n't know where they are actual stored anymore 3. store files you downloaded from the internet to view them in your browser ( temp internet files ) in a database 4. change the actual file size to some rounded number in base10 Change is good , but some of the new " inventions " makes you learn bullshit and stuff that is just not true .
This is just another attempt to make the computer more like a toaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a good point, but the wrong reason.
Just because you don't want to change your behaviour is not important, new generations will not care what you thought back then.
For me it is important, that I know how much space is taken and if the file still fits.
Everything else makes the files on the computer abstact and you don't really know what you actual do on a computer.
Some examples:
1. hiding part of the filename on the filesystem (file extensions)
2. index files, so you don't know where they are actual stored anymore
3. store files you downloaded from the internet to view them in your browser (temp internet files) in a database
4. change the actual file size to some rounded number in base10

Change is good, but some of the new "inventions" makes you learn bullshit and stuff that is just not true.
This is just another attempt to make the computer more like a toaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31652246</id>
	<title>I.T. Guy Has Long Dark Night Of Self-Doubt</title>
	<author>Swave An deBwoner</author>
	<datestamp>1269786480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Damn!  I thought this was going to link to a funny article in <i>The Onion</i>.
<br> <br>
Well, <a href="http://www.theonion.com/articles/it-guy-has-long-dark-night-of-selfdoubt,5084/" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow"> <i>this</i> </a> [theonion.com] will have to do then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn !
I thought this was going to link to a funny article in The Onion .
Well , this [ theonion.com ] will have to do then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn!
I thought this was going to link to a funny article in The Onion.
Well,  this  [theonion.com] will have to do then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641238</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269716820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Names of things doesn't have anything to do with mathematics. Mathematically 4+4=2 is just as fine as 2+2=4. They are just symbols.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Names of things does n't have anything to do with mathematics .
Mathematically 4 + 4 = 2 is just as fine as 2 + 2 = 4 .
They are just symbols .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Names of things doesn't have anything to do with mathematics.
Mathematically 4+4=2 is just as fine as 2+2=4.
They are just symbols.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640018</id>
	<title>IEEE 1541 Recommendations</title>
	<author>Kreychek</author>
	<datestamp>1269709440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought the reputable mfgs had already jumped on the bandwagon where they use kibi-/mebi-/etc prefixes to denotes powers of 2?

See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE\_1541#Recommendations" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">IEEE 1541</a> [wikipedia.org].

Following this standard, the change makes sense. Either that or they should have switched to the binary prefixes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the reputable mfgs had already jumped on the bandwagon where they use kibi-/mebi-/etc prefixes to denotes powers of 2 ?
See IEEE 1541 [ wikipedia.org ] .
Following this standard , the change makes sense .
Either that or they should have switched to the binary prefixes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the reputable mfgs had already jumped on the bandwagon where they use kibi-/mebi-/etc prefixes to denotes powers of 2?
See IEEE 1541 [wikipedia.org].
Following this standard, the change makes sense.
Either that or they should have switched to the binary prefixes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31684598</id>
	<title>Re:MO? GO?</title>
	<author>TedRiot</author>
	<datestamp>1270029720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But that's a very good thing. That also defines the size of byte used to calculate the capacity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But that 's a very good thing .
That also defines the size of byte used to calculate the capacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that's a very good thing.
That also defines the size of byte used to calculate the capacity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640388</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1269711540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, that's the same argument Americans use for not adopting metric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , that 's the same argument Americans use for not adopting metric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, that's the same argument Americans use for not adopting metric.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970</id>
	<title>Annoying...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269709200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Human language is context based; meaning the exact meaning of words depends on in which context they are used. Why should it be different for prefixes? Just so a few morons won't be confused? Pah... morons being morons will just find something else to be confused about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Human language is context based ; meaning the exact meaning of words depends on in which context they are used .
Why should it be different for prefixes ?
Just so a few morons wo n't be confused ?
Pah... morons being morons will just find something else to be confused about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human language is context based; meaning the exact meaning of words depends on in which context they are used.
Why should it be different for prefixes?
Just so a few morons won't be confused?
Pah... morons being morons will just find something else to be confused about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640004</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269709380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... except that it will make them think they use more disk space... you will use more units of 1000 than units of 1024.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... except that it will make them think they use more disk space... you will use more units of 1000 than units of 1024 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... except that it will make them think they use more disk space... you will use more units of 1000 than units of 1024.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31657778</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269879960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Saying that 1024 is a kilo never made any sense to anyone.</p></div><p>This is extremely false. The fundamental mathematic simplicity of binary computers does not care about the totally arbitrary system of SI prefixes. Digital storage, being partitioned in power-of-two quantities, reappropriated those SI prefixes in a way that <b>did</b> make sense.</p><p>The only problem arose when hard drive manufacturers decided that the "kilo" they started using on Tuesday was going to be different than what it was on Monday, without any associated change in the hard drives themselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying that 1024 is a kilo never made any sense to anyone.This is extremely false .
The fundamental mathematic simplicity of binary computers does not care about the totally arbitrary system of SI prefixes .
Digital storage , being partitioned in power-of-two quantities , reappropriated those SI prefixes in a way that did make sense.The only problem arose when hard drive manufacturers decided that the " kilo " they started using on Tuesday was going to be different than what it was on Monday , without any associated change in the hard drives themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying that 1024 is a kilo never made any sense to anyone.This is extremely false.
The fundamental mathematic simplicity of binary computers does not care about the totally arbitrary system of SI prefixes.
Digital storage, being partitioned in power-of-two quantities, reappropriated those SI prefixes in a way that did make sense.The only problem arose when hard drive manufacturers decided that the "kilo" they started using on Tuesday was going to be different than what it was on Monday, without any associated change in the hard drives themselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644528</id>
	<title>Re:Dumbing Down</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1269704400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Whatever next? Ten bits in a byte?</p></div></blockquote><p>Sure.  1 start bit, 8 data bits, 1 stop bit.  Ten bits.</p><p>Which brings up the question: Why are communications bits measured in base 10?   Simple enough; they're based on clock rates, not data path sizes.  Those clock rates have nothing to do with base 2.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever next ?
Ten bits in a byte ? Sure .
1 start bit , 8 data bits , 1 stop bit .
Ten bits.Which brings up the question : Why are communications bits measured in base 10 ?
Simple enough ; they 're based on clock rates , not data path sizes .
Those clock rates have nothing to do with base 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever next?
Ten bits in a byte?Sure.
1 start bit, 8 data bits, 1 stop bit.
Ten bits.Which brings up the question: Why are communications bits measured in base 10?
Simple enough; they're based on clock rates, not data path sizes.
Those clock rates have nothing to do with base 2.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640964</id>
	<title>It's what people use naturally</title>
	<author>ShinmaWa</author>
	<datestamp>1269715140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you went to the terminal and saw this file</p><p><div class="quote"><p>file.big         17,179,869,184</p></div><p>I suspect that you would naturally say that that file is about 17 gigs.  Actually, it is 16 GiB exactly.</p><p>However, just looking at the file, <b>no one</b> would ever instinctively say that file.big is 16 GiB.   The reality is that base-10 is what people naturally use and so it makes sense for the user interface to reflect that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you went to the terminal and saw this filefile.big 17,179,869,184I suspect that you would naturally say that that file is about 17 gigs .
Actually , it is 16 GiB exactly.However , just looking at the file , no one would ever instinctively say that file.big is 16 GiB .
The reality is that base-10 is what people naturally use and so it makes sense for the user interface to reflect that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you went to the terminal and saw this filefile.big         17,179,869,184I suspect that you would naturally say that that file is about 17 gigs.
Actually, it is 16 GiB exactly.However, just looking at the file, no one would ever instinctively say that file.big is 16 GiB.
The reality is that base-10 is what people naturally use and so it makes sense for the user interface to reflect that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643538</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269693120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Err.. http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8484389&amp;postcount=54</p><p>I can see you're so annoyed at the problem you didn't even bother to google it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Err.. http : //forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php ? p = 8484389&amp;postcount = 54I can see you 're so annoyed at the problem you did n't even bother to google it : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err.. http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8484389&amp;postcount=54I can see you're so annoyed at the problem you didn't even bother to google it :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641160</id>
	<title>Base-19 which base</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269716340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The number 10 is different depending upon which base you use.</p><p>There are 10 types of people, those who understand binary, and those who don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The number 10 is different depending upon which base you use.There are 10 types of people , those who understand binary , and those who do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The number 10 is different depending upon which base you use.There are 10 types of people, those who understand binary, and those who don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643714</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269694860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're Americans. They think the S.I. is a French Communist UN conspiracy. But I wonder how many of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. contributors are actually coders. Code usually isn't that case insensitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're Americans .
They think the S.I .
is a French Communist UN conspiracy .
But I wonder how many of the / .
contributors are actually coders .
Code usually is n't that case insensitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're Americans.
They think the S.I.
is a French Communist UN conspiracy.
But I wonder how many of the /.
contributors are actually coders.
Code usually isn't that case insensitive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640974</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269715260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been using computers for 20+ years and I do \_not\_ want to change how I think file sizes</p></div><p>That's ok if you don't feel like adapting. I'm sure there are plenty of young-uns who have no idea and don't care what "a binary" is anymore and would be more than happy to keep pace with the rest of the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using computers for 20 + years and I do \ _not \ _ want to change how I think file sizesThat 's ok if you do n't feel like adapting .
I 'm sure there are plenty of young-uns who have no idea and do n't care what " a binary " is anymore and would be more than happy to keep pace with the rest of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using computers for 20+ years and I do \_not\_ want to change how I think file sizesThat's ok if you don't feel like adapting.
I'm sure there are plenty of young-uns who have no idea and don't care what "a binary" is anymore and would be more than happy to keep pace with the rest of the world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642132</id>
	<title>Re:And I thought geeks were supposed to be FLEXIBL</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269680460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I&rsquo;s not about being flexible. It&rsquo;s about not being retarded.<br>We are the experts on the subject. We know better. Period.<br>So for someone to tell us how our computer should work, it must be someone who is even more of an expert.<br>A standards committee is not someone like that.</p><p>The simple fact is, that all computers nowadays are base 2. So for the numbers to be useful, they must also be base two. Half your ram, hard disk, cache, display resolution, data rate, etc, will always be a nice round number in base 2, 8 or 16, and a very hard to remember number in base 10.</p><p>I think anyone who uses a computer (as in, uses it for what it is there: to <em>automate</em> things), will continue to use base-2-based number systems. And base 10 will be for the appliance fiddlers who only play with colorful clickables, and should in fact not called users at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I    s not about being flexible .
It    s about not being retarded.We are the experts on the subject .
We know better .
Period.So for someone to tell us how our computer should work , it must be someone who is even more of an expert.A standards committee is not someone like that.The simple fact is , that all computers nowadays are base 2 .
So for the numbers to be useful , they must also be base two .
Half your ram , hard disk , cache , display resolution , data rate , etc , will always be a nice round number in base 2 , 8 or 16 , and a very hard to remember number in base 10.I think anyone who uses a computer ( as in , uses it for what it is there : to automate things ) , will continue to use base-2-based number systems .
And base 10 will be for the appliance fiddlers who only play with colorful clickables , and should in fact not called users at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I’s not about being flexible.
It’s about not being retarded.We are the experts on the subject.
We know better.
Period.So for someone to tell us how our computer should work, it must be someone who is even more of an expert.A standards committee is not someone like that.The simple fact is, that all computers nowadays are base 2.
So for the numbers to be useful, they must also be base two.
Half your ram, hard disk, cache, display resolution, data rate, etc, will always be a nice round number in base 2, 8 or 16, and a very hard to remember number in base 10.I think anyone who uses a computer (as in, uses it for what it is there: to automate things), will continue to use base-2-based number systems.
And base 10 will be for the appliance fiddlers who only play with colorful clickables, and should in fact not called users at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642472</id>
	<title>Re:Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269683220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not particularly.  You're not counting potential states, your counting state holders.  You can have 10 bits as easily as 8.  And if they were trinary bits, that wouldn't matter either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not particularly .
You 're not counting potential states , your counting state holders .
You can have 10 bits as easily as 8 .
And if they were trinary bits , that would n't matter either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not particularly.
You're not counting potential states, your counting state holders.
You can have 10 bits as easily as 8.
And if they were trinary bits, that wouldn't matter either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639958</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269709140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it interesting that operating systems are headed in this direction, while SSDs are becoming more and more popular, and which (for the most part) use base 2 measurements.</p><p>It looks like both Apple and Ubuntu are trying to get consumers to think that they use less disk space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it interesting that operating systems are headed in this direction , while SSDs are becoming more and more popular , and which ( for the most part ) use base 2 measurements.It looks like both Apple and Ubuntu are trying to get consumers to think that they use less disk space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it interesting that operating systems are headed in this direction, while SSDs are becoming more and more popular, and which (for the most part) use base 2 measurements.It looks like both Apple and Ubuntu are trying to get consumers to think that they use less disk space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645222</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269713040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, you could just stop hiding a factor of a billion in the question of whether a letter is capitalized or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , you could just stop hiding a factor of a billion in the question of whether a letter is capitalized or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, you could just stop hiding a factor of a billion in the question of whether a letter is capitalized or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641092</id>
	<title>locale</title>
	<author>bugi</author>
	<datestamp>1269715920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May I humbly suggest that for locale C, we retain the base-2 prefixes.  Then for POINTLESS\_PEDANT locale, use SI prefixes.  To specify base-2 prefixes without maintaining the rest of the C locales semantics, I recommend GET\_OFF\_MY\_LAWN.  Or maybe just an environment variable to indicate DISK\_MANUFACTURERS\_ARE\_GREEDY\_BASTARDS with 0, empty or non-existence assuming you have traveled back in time or are living in denial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May I humbly suggest that for locale C , we retain the base-2 prefixes .
Then for POINTLESS \ _PEDANT locale , use SI prefixes .
To specify base-2 prefixes without maintaining the rest of the C locales semantics , I recommend GET \ _OFF \ _MY \ _LAWN .
Or maybe just an environment variable to indicate DISK \ _MANUFACTURERS \ _ARE \ _GREEDY \ _BASTARDS with 0 , empty or non-existence assuming you have traveled back in time or are living in denial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May I humbly suggest that for locale C, we retain the base-2 prefixes.
Then for POINTLESS\_PEDANT locale, use SI prefixes.
To specify base-2 prefixes without maintaining the rest of the C locales semantics, I recommend GET\_OFF\_MY\_LAWN.
Or maybe just an environment variable to indicate DISK\_MANUFACTURERS\_ARE\_GREEDY\_BASTARDS with 0, empty or non-existence assuming you have traveled back in time or are living in denial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640586</id>
	<title>Why not change the human base instead?</title>
	<author>Chemisor</author>
	<datestamp>1269712560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be so much better for everyone if we switched our human number system to octal. Eight a power of two, which is a MAJOR plus when dealing with computers, a very important issue in any technologically advanced civilization. This property makes it locally convertible to any other power of two base. Eight is a natural cube, making even volumes easier for manufacturers. Eight occurs in many natural relationships and physical laws, making it a much better choice for doing science. Eight has a smaller addition and multiplication tables, which will make our children better at math. And, in octal, you can count to thirty without removing your shoes; how's that for an advantage?</p><p>Base 10, on the other hand, has no advantages whatsoever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be so much better for everyone if we switched our human number system to octal .
Eight a power of two , which is a MAJOR plus when dealing with computers , a very important issue in any technologically advanced civilization .
This property makes it locally convertible to any other power of two base .
Eight is a natural cube , making even volumes easier for manufacturers .
Eight occurs in many natural relationships and physical laws , making it a much better choice for doing science .
Eight has a smaller addition and multiplication tables , which will make our children better at math .
And , in octal , you can count to thirty without removing your shoes ; how 's that for an advantage ? Base 10 , on the other hand , has no advantages whatsoever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be so much better for everyone if we switched our human number system to octal.
Eight a power of two, which is a MAJOR plus when dealing with computers, a very important issue in any technologically advanced civilization.
This property makes it locally convertible to any other power of two base.
Eight is a natural cube, making even volumes easier for manufacturers.
Eight occurs in many natural relationships and physical laws, making it a much better choice for doing science.
Eight has a smaller addition and multiplication tables, which will make our children better at math.
And, in octal, you can count to thirty without removing your shoes; how's that for an advantage?Base 10, on the other hand, has no advantages whatsoever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643748</id>
	<title>Context is the same</title>
	<author>orzetto</author>
	<datestamp>1269695460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Human language is context based; [...]</p></div></blockquote><p>The problem is that the context in which you mean 10 GB or 10 GiB is exactly the same. Hence the need for standards. You may live in the US, but anyone who was in high school everywhere else on Earth understands the prefixes k, M, and G as powers of 10.</p><blockquote><div><p>Just so a few morons won't be confused?</p></div></blockquote><p>Those "few morons" to be confused are the consumers whose money is likely paying your salary. kB, MB and GB are not the names of registries in assembly language, they are units to be displayed prominently on consumer products. I can imagine a similar reaction when metrication was introduced in Germany in the 19th century, where every city had its definition of "pound".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Human language is context based ; [ ... ] The problem is that the context in which you mean 10 GB or 10 GiB is exactly the same .
Hence the need for standards .
You may live in the US , but anyone who was in high school everywhere else on Earth understands the prefixes k , M , and G as powers of 10.Just so a few morons wo n't be confused ? Those " few morons " to be confused are the consumers whose money is likely paying your salary .
kB , MB and GB are not the names of registries in assembly language , they are units to be displayed prominently on consumer products .
I can imagine a similar reaction when metrication was introduced in Germany in the 19th century , where every city had its definition of " pound " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human language is context based; [...]The problem is that the context in which you mean 10 GB or 10 GiB is exactly the same.
Hence the need for standards.
You may live in the US, but anyone who was in high school everywhere else on Earth understands the prefixes k, M, and G as powers of 10.Just so a few morons won't be confused?Those "few morons" to be confused are the consumers whose money is likely paying your salary.
kB, MB and GB are not the names of registries in assembly language, they are units to be displayed prominently on consumer products.
I can imagine a similar reaction when metrication was introduced in Germany in the 19th century, where every city had its definition of "pound".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646000</id>
	<title>Re:ubuntu joins apple...</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1269769200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why can't the OS manufacturers pressure the hard drive companies to market their sizes correctly? =(</p></div><p>Have you looked up how bits are stored on HDDs? This isn't flash memory.</p><p>"Correct" is hard to define, since the typical way we use HDDs is very "digital", but everything is actually stored analog. There's no 1's and 0's when it comes to magnatism, and no way to store the perfect amount of bits on a rotating circular platter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't the OS manufacturers pressure the hard drive companies to market their sizes correctly ?
= ( Have you looked up how bits are stored on HDDs ?
This is n't flash memory .
" Correct " is hard to define , since the typical way we use HDDs is very " digital " , but everything is actually stored analog .
There 's no 1 's and 0 's when it comes to magnatism , and no way to store the perfect amount of bits on a rotating circular platter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't the OS manufacturers pressure the hard drive companies to market their sizes correctly?
=(Have you looked up how bits are stored on HDDs?
This isn't flash memory.
"Correct" is hard to define, since the typical way we use HDDs is very "digital", but everything is actually stored analog.
There's no 1's and 0's when it comes to magnatism, and no way to store the perfect amount of bits on a rotating circular platter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642732</id>
	<title>Re:Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1269685200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>As long as they use the correct prefix, I don't really mind whether they use base 2 or 10 to display the numbers.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>That's actually the hard part.  I'm seen nasty flame wars breakout on Wikipedia when somebody tried to insert that lower case "i".  When I'm asked to review engineer-written release notes and UI text (I'm a tech writer), I get really brutal pushback when I try to tell them that "megabyte" means "1,000,000 Bytes", not "2^20  Bytes".</p><p>Down deep, most people  are language nazis, usually with some weird notions about "correct" usage that have no real basis.  Telling people they mean "mibi"  not "mega" definitely pushes that button.</p><p>Speaking of language nazis: you mean "suffix," not "prefix."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as they use the correct prefix , I do n't really mind whether they use base 2 or 10 to display the numbers .
That 's actually the hard part .
I 'm seen nasty flame wars breakout on Wikipedia when somebody tried to insert that lower case " i " .
When I 'm asked to review engineer-written release notes and UI text ( I 'm a tech writer ) , I get really brutal pushback when I try to tell them that " megabyte " means " 1,000,000 Bytes " , not " 2 ^ 20 Bytes " .Down deep , most people are language nazis , usually with some weird notions about " correct " usage that have no real basis .
Telling people they mean " mibi " not " mega " definitely pushes that button.Speaking of language nazis : you mean " suffix , " not " prefix .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> As long as they use the correct prefix, I don't really mind whether they use base 2 or 10 to display the numbers.
That's actually the hard part.
I'm seen nasty flame wars breakout on Wikipedia when somebody tried to insert that lower case "i".
When I'm asked to review engineer-written release notes and UI text (I'm a tech writer), I get really brutal pushback when I try to tell them that "megabyte" means "1,000,000 Bytes", not "2^20  Bytes".Down deep, most people  are language nazis, usually with some weird notions about "correct" usage that have no real basis.
Telling people they mean "mibi"  not "mega" definitely pushes that button.Speaking of language nazis: you mean "suffix," not "prefix.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644760</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>Alcoholic Synonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269707340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, THAT issue has been solved for a long time. Base 10 is lowercase, base 2 is uppercase. Likewise, little b means bit while big B means Byte (8-bits). All Ubuntu is doing is turning the mud in the water into raw sewage.</p><p>It is far easier to teach that there is a difference in base 2 and base 10 numbers and that computers are using base 2 in size calculations because they can only count to 1. The underbelly of the computer beast isn't counting any different, only Ubuntu's presentation to the user is being affected. This is superfluous math for the application at the least, and just adding more confusion for the user at most.</p><p>A byte is still 8 bits. This means that an Ubuntu kilobyte is really 8000 bits, not 10000! It will still take up 8192 bits on the disk at minimum though. Now, when people see their files are 1kB, they will still be loosing 1KiB of disk space. And their 80GB disk will still only have have about 74.5GiB available to them...</p><p>Who thinks there will be a japanophile edition that renames kibibyte to chibibyte?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , THAT issue has been solved for a long time .
Base 10 is lowercase , base 2 is uppercase .
Likewise , little b means bit while big B means Byte ( 8-bits ) .
All Ubuntu is doing is turning the mud in the water into raw sewage.It is far easier to teach that there is a difference in base 2 and base 10 numbers and that computers are using base 2 in size calculations because they can only count to 1 .
The underbelly of the computer beast is n't counting any different , only Ubuntu 's presentation to the user is being affected .
This is superfluous math for the application at the least , and just adding more confusion for the user at most.A byte is still 8 bits .
This means that an Ubuntu kilobyte is really 8000 bits , not 10000 !
It will still take up 8192 bits on the disk at minimum though .
Now , when people see their files are 1kB , they will still be loosing 1KiB of disk space .
And their 80GB disk will still only have have about 74.5GiB available to them...Who thinks there will be a japanophile edition that renames kibibyte to chibibyte ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, THAT issue has been solved for a long time.
Base 10 is lowercase, base 2 is uppercase.
Likewise, little b means bit while big B means Byte (8-bits).
All Ubuntu is doing is turning the mud in the water into raw sewage.It is far easier to teach that there is a difference in base 2 and base 10 numbers and that computers are using base 2 in size calculations because they can only count to 1.
The underbelly of the computer beast isn't counting any different, only Ubuntu's presentation to the user is being affected.
This is superfluous math for the application at the least, and just adding more confusion for the user at most.A byte is still 8 bits.
This means that an Ubuntu kilobyte is really 8000 bits, not 10000!
It will still take up 8192 bits on the disk at minimum though.
Now, when people see their files are 1kB, they will still be loosing 1KiB of disk space.
And their 80GB disk will still only have have about 74.5GiB available to them...Who thinks there will be a japanophile edition that renames kibibyte to chibibyte?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640346</id>
	<title>Re:WRONG: Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>marcansoft</author>
	<datestamp>1269711300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This "trick" would make your OS look like it's using more space (more space used on the HDD), and also make it look like it's using less space (more free space on the HDD). Proportionately, the OS still uses the same percentage of your hard drive, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This " trick " would make your OS look like it 's using more space ( more space used on the HDD ) , and also make it look like it 's using less space ( more free space on the HDD ) .
Proportionately , the OS still uses the same percentage of your hard drive , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This "trick" would make your OS look like it's using more space (more space used on the HDD), and also make it look like it's using less space (more free space on the HDD).
Proportionately, the OS still uses the same percentage of your hard drive, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641884</id>
	<title>Re:And I thought geeks were supposed to be FLEXIBL</title>
	<author>Kozz</author>
	<datestamp>1269721860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Many computer nerds like to tout themselves as geniuses who have flexible minds.  But the truth is that we're all afraid of change.</p></div><p>It's times like these that I like to remember Walter Sobchak:  &quot;Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules?&quot;</p><p>In all honesty, I think a change is driving so many of us batshit crazy because (as other posters have noted) we've been taught (and marketed to) that 1024 bytes = 1 kilobyte.  We fuckin' laugh at people who actually say "kibibyte" out loud.  Nobody actually talks about / uses the (ki|me|gi)bibyte words, honestly.  When HDD manufacturers would fudge with their numbers when reporting capacity (back when this was a much bigger deal) by stating that 1 megabyte was 1000 kilobytes, we got pretty pissed off, didn't we?  Additionally, consider the threads that get started whenever someone complains about the changing of the English language, how it is used in common speech vs the proper/original meaning (see "begs the question" or "decimate" discussion threads).</p><p>See, we're the same people who are irritated when we find out that Puff Daddy has decided he's now Puffy.  No, wait.  Make that P. Diddy.  Naw, just Diddy.  (seriously, wtf?)  We've been talking about the same fucking thing for so long and using a name which so few people had problems with, and now you wanna change it?  *sigh*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many computer nerds like to tout themselves as geniuses who have flexible minds .
But the truth is that we 're all afraid of change.It 's times like these that I like to remember Walter Sobchak : " Has the whole world gone crazy ?
Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules ?
" In all honesty , I think a change is driving so many of us batshit crazy because ( as other posters have noted ) we 've been taught ( and marketed to ) that 1024 bytes = 1 kilobyte .
We fuckin ' laugh at people who actually say " kibibyte " out loud .
Nobody actually talks about / uses the ( ki | me | gi ) bibyte words , honestly .
When HDD manufacturers would fudge with their numbers when reporting capacity ( back when this was a much bigger deal ) by stating that 1 megabyte was 1000 kilobytes , we got pretty pissed off , did n't we ?
Additionally , consider the threads that get started whenever someone complains about the changing of the English language , how it is used in common speech vs the proper/original meaning ( see " begs the question " or " decimate " discussion threads ) .See , we 're the same people who are irritated when we find out that Puff Daddy has decided he 's now Puffy .
No , wait .
Make that P. Diddy. Naw , just Diddy .
( seriously , wtf ?
) We 've been talking about the same fucking thing for so long and using a name which so few people had problems with , and now you wan na change it ?
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many computer nerds like to tout themselves as geniuses who have flexible minds.
But the truth is that we're all afraid of change.It's times like these that I like to remember Walter Sobchak:  "Has the whole world gone crazy?
Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules?
"In all honesty, I think a change is driving so many of us batshit crazy because (as other posters have noted) we've been taught (and marketed to) that 1024 bytes = 1 kilobyte.
We fuckin' laugh at people who actually say "kibibyte" out loud.
Nobody actually talks about / uses the (ki|me|gi)bibyte words, honestly.
When HDD manufacturers would fudge with their numbers when reporting capacity (back when this was a much bigger deal) by stating that 1 megabyte was 1000 kilobytes, we got pretty pissed off, didn't we?
Additionally, consider the threads that get started whenever someone complains about the changing of the English language, how it is used in common speech vs the proper/original meaning (see "begs the question" or "decimate" discussion threads).See, we're the same people who are irritated when we find out that Puff Daddy has decided he's now Puffy.
No, wait.
Make that P. Diddy.  Naw, just Diddy.
(seriously, wtf?
)  We've been talking about the same fucking thing for so long and using a name which so few people had problems with, and now you wanna change it?
*sigh*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640494</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269712200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count.</p></div><p>You must have a horribly difficult time in this world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count.You must have a horribly difficult time in this world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count.You must have a horribly difficult time in this world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641032</id>
	<title>Re:Bye Ubuntu, was nice knowing you.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269715560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>-- Change the way file sizes are read so that User X and User Y see different file sizes using the same filesystem, even potentially the same remotely mounted disk?--</p></div><p>No they will not. They will see the exact same file sizes in possibly two different formats. The difference is that now Ubuntu has a policy saying which format it is using.</p><p>But I also think that kilo=2^10 convention is in wider use in the IT world and for a good reason. Thus I think that Ubuntu having a unit policy is a great thing, but they choose the wrong convention<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>-- Change the way file sizes are read so that User X and User Y see different file sizes using the same filesystem , even potentially the same remotely mounted disk ? --No they will not .
They will see the exact same file sizes in possibly two different formats .
The difference is that now Ubuntu has a policy saying which format it is using.But I also think that kilo = 2 ^ 10 convention is in wider use in the IT world and for a good reason .
Thus I think that Ubuntu having a unit policy is a great thing , but they choose the wrong convention : ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-- Change the way file sizes are read so that User X and User Y see different file sizes using the same filesystem, even potentially the same remotely mounted disk?--No they will not.
They will see the exact same file sizes in possibly two different formats.
The difference is that now Ubuntu has a policy saying which format it is using.But I also think that kilo=2^10 convention is in wider use in the IT world and for a good reason.
Thus I think that Ubuntu having a unit policy is a great thing, but they choose the wrong convention :).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644318</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Setsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1269701520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> those who know how big a MB actually is will continue knowing, and will quickly (and eagerly) find the ways to make their computers show sizes correclty.</p></div><p>How big is a megabyte?</p><p> Does any binary-ist really know without reaching for their calculator? I date back to 1980's microcomputers and could recite all the powers of 2 upto 2 to the 16th (65536). I gave up after memory sizes went beyond that. I hand assembled Z80 machine code by looking up their hex codes in an opcode table. We don't live in the world where we deal directly with binary any more.</p><p>
I've been a decimal-ist for a few years and early on I actually almost finished a decimal file manager (there weren't any at all back then). It used resistor notation (where k/M/G isnt at the end of the number, but in the middle replacing the decimal point [period]). It showed all the digits in the filesize, but only the first four were in black, the rest were ghosted down to gray. That way you could easily read the approximate size, or look harder and read the complete number. Eg 314159265 would appear as <b>314M1</b>59265
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>those who know how big a MB actually is will continue knowing , and will quickly ( and eagerly ) find the ways to make their computers show sizes correclty.How big is a megabyte ?
Does any binary-ist really know without reaching for their calculator ?
I date back to 1980 's microcomputers and could recite all the powers of 2 upto 2 to the 16th ( 65536 ) .
I gave up after memory sizes went beyond that .
I hand assembled Z80 machine code by looking up their hex codes in an opcode table .
We do n't live in the world where we deal directly with binary any more .
I 've been a decimal-ist for a few years and early on I actually almost finished a decimal file manager ( there were n't any at all back then ) .
It used resistor notation ( where k/M/G isnt at the end of the number , but in the middle replacing the decimal point [ period ] ) .
It showed all the digits in the filesize , but only the first four were in black , the rest were ghosted down to gray .
That way you could easily read the approximate size , or look harder and read the complete number .
Eg 314159265 would appear as 314M159265</tokentext>
<sentencetext> those who know how big a MB actually is will continue knowing, and will quickly (and eagerly) find the ways to make their computers show sizes correclty.How big is a megabyte?
Does any binary-ist really know without reaching for their calculator?
I date back to 1980's microcomputers and could recite all the powers of 2 upto 2 to the 16th (65536).
I gave up after memory sizes went beyond that.
I hand assembled Z80 machine code by looking up their hex codes in an opcode table.
We don't live in the world where we deal directly with binary any more.
I've been a decimal-ist for a few years and early on I actually almost finished a decimal file manager (there weren't any at all back then).
It used resistor notation (where k/M/G isnt at the end of the number, but in the middle replacing the decimal point [period]).
It showed all the digits in the filesize, but only the first four were in black, the rest were ghosted down to gray.
That way you could easily read the approximate size, or look harder and read the complete number.
Eg 314159265 would appear as 314M159265

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641746</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269720540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't solve the problem. It only makes it slightly easier.</p><p>Assume that we change the system and have different names for the units (ok, some would say we already have). You still have to convert between the two and know one is base 2 and one is base 10. There is no way everything would switch to base 2. It is unlikely that everything would switch to base 10. So you still have different units you have to convert.</p><p>It helps people who are not used to the technology know which is which, but they usually don't care. The engineers that deal with this have to worry about a lot more details than units. This is really minor; anyone who knows the technology well knows the difference without thinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't solve the problem .
It only makes it slightly easier.Assume that we change the system and have different names for the units ( ok , some would say we already have ) .
You still have to convert between the two and know one is base 2 and one is base 10 .
There is no way everything would switch to base 2 .
It is unlikely that everything would switch to base 10 .
So you still have different units you have to convert.It helps people who are not used to the technology know which is which , but they usually do n't care .
The engineers that deal with this have to worry about a lot more details than units .
This is really minor ; anyone who knows the technology well knows the difference without thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't solve the problem.
It only makes it slightly easier.Assume that we change the system and have different names for the units (ok, some would say we already have).
You still have to convert between the two and know one is base 2 and one is base 10.
There is no way everything would switch to base 2.
It is unlikely that everything would switch to base 10.
So you still have different units you have to convert.It helps people who are not used to the technology know which is which, but they usually don't care.
The engineers that deal with this have to worry about a lot more details than units.
This is really minor; anyone who knows the technology well knows the difference without thinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642740</id>
	<title>I'm kinda confused...</title>
	<author>RPG Master</author>
	<datestamp>1269685200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How will this affect the average teen who uses Ubuntu?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How will this affect the average teen who uses Ubuntu ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will this affect the average teen who uses Ubuntu?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640420</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1269711720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've been using computers for 20+ years and I do \_not\_ want to change how I think file sizes, especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>I disagree; base 10 is clearly superior to base 1010.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using computers for 20 + years and I do \ _not \ _ want to change how I think file sizes , especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count .
I disagree ; base 10 is clearly superior to base 1010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using computers for 20+ years and I do \_not\_ want to change how I think file sizes, especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count.
I disagree; base 10 is clearly superior to base 1010.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31757462</id>
	<title>God meant us to program with 8 bits.</title>
	<author>formfeed</author>
	<datestamp>1270571160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>God gave you 8 fingers, carry and overflow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>God gave you 8 fingers , carry and overflow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God gave you 8 fingers, carry and overflow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643552</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>binary paladin</author>
	<datestamp>1269693300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hahaha. Imperial units for Europeans.</p><p>What I find ironic here is that what you're saying is exactly the opposite. Having everyone, oh I don't know, standardize around kilo = 1000 rather than sometimes 1024 and sometimes 1000 seems exactly like having people in the USA switch from imperial to metric.</p><p>What you're saying (and what Americans seem to get booed for all the time) is that they... wait for it... do \_not\_ want to change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hahaha .
Imperial units for Europeans.What I find ironic here is that what you 're saying is exactly the opposite .
Having everyone , oh I do n't know , standardize around kilo = 1000 rather than sometimes 1024 and sometimes 1000 seems exactly like having people in the USA switch from imperial to metric.What you 're saying ( and what Americans seem to get booed for all the time ) is that they... wait for it... do \ _not \ _ want to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hahaha.
Imperial units for Europeans.What I find ironic here is that what you're saying is exactly the opposite.
Having everyone, oh I don't know, standardize around kilo = 1000 rather than sometimes 1024 and sometimes 1000 seems exactly like having people in the USA switch from imperial to metric.What you're saying (and what Americans seem to get booed for all the time) is that they... wait for it... do \_not\_ want to change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640250</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269710820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://web.me.com/brkirch/brkirchs\_Software/switchDiskSizeBase/switchDiskSizeBase.html" title="me.com" rel="nofollow">http://web.me.com/brkirch/brkirchs\_Software/switchDiskSizeBase/switchDiskSizeBase.html</a> [me.com]
<br> <br>
This patches the file size calculation at a very low level in the OS. Enjoy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //web.me.com/brkirch/brkirchs \ _Software/switchDiskSizeBase/switchDiskSizeBase.html [ me.com ] This patches the file size calculation at a very low level in the OS .
Enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://web.me.com/brkirch/brkirchs\_Software/switchDiskSizeBase/switchDiskSizeBase.html [me.com]
 
This patches the file size calculation at a very low level in the OS.
Enjoy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640444</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1269711900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you *really* want to know how big your files *really* are, you should demand that the OS round up to the nearest cluster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you * really * want to know how big your files * really * are , you should demand that the OS round up to the nearest cluster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you *really* want to know how big your files *really* are, you should demand that the OS round up to the nearest cluster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31647726</id>
	<title>Re:ubuntu joins apple...</title>
	<author>chilvence</author>
	<datestamp>1269795120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so is that 11 types of people then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so is that 11 types of people then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so is that 11 types of people then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646334</id>
	<title>Re:Base-19 which base</title>
	<author>TeknoHog</author>
	<datestamp>1269777420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are 10 people in the world, those with a sufficiently large base.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are 10 people in the world , those with a sufficiently large base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are 10 people in the world, those with a sufficiently large base.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641064</id>
	<title>Fine by me</title>
	<author>ceswiedler</author>
	<datestamp>1269715740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know a lot of people hate the binary prefixes kibi-, mibi-, etc., but really, do you ever need to SAY them or write them out? When I tell someone verbally that a file I'm sending them is 4 megabytes, they probably don't care whether I mean 4 x 10e6 or 2e12. If they do, I can tell them the exact number of bytes. When it's written down it often needs to be more precise, but it's always abbreviated, and KiB isn't any harder to read or write than KB.</p><p>So just use the SI standard names when it doesn't matter, and use the SI standard abbreviations when you need to be precise. Of course, people who conveniently use KB to mean 1,000 bytes in order to make something appear larger need have some not-too-fine print clarifying the meaning they're using.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a lot of people hate the binary prefixes kibi- , mibi- , etc. , but really , do you ever need to SAY them or write them out ?
When I tell someone verbally that a file I 'm sending them is 4 megabytes , they probably do n't care whether I mean 4 x 10e6 or 2e12 .
If they do , I can tell them the exact number of bytes .
When it 's written down it often needs to be more precise , but it 's always abbreviated , and KiB is n't any harder to read or write than KB.So just use the SI standard names when it does n't matter , and use the SI standard abbreviations when you need to be precise .
Of course , people who conveniently use KB to mean 1,000 bytes in order to make something appear larger need have some not-too-fine print clarifying the meaning they 're using .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a lot of people hate the binary prefixes kibi-, mibi-, etc., but really, do you ever need to SAY them or write them out?
When I tell someone verbally that a file I'm sending them is 4 megabytes, they probably don't care whether I mean 4 x 10e6 or 2e12.
If they do, I can tell them the exact number of bytes.
When it's written down it often needs to be more precise, but it's always abbreviated, and KiB isn't any harder to read or write than KB.So just use the SI standard names when it doesn't matter, and use the SI standard abbreviations when you need to be precise.
Of course, people who conveniently use KB to mean 1,000 bytes in order to make something appear larger need have some not-too-fine print clarifying the meaning they're using.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640468</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1269712020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it's more like changing from the imperial system to the metric system. Sure, the imperial system's conversions made sense in the context that they were created, but for a sense of consistency and predictability, you can't beat base 10 metric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's more like changing from the imperial system to the metric system .
Sure , the imperial system 's conversions made sense in the context that they were created , but for a sense of consistency and predictability , you ca n't beat base 10 metric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's more like changing from the imperial system to the metric system.
Sure, the imperial system's conversions made sense in the context that they were created, but for a sense of consistency and predictability, you can't beat base 10 metric.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640706</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying...</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1269713280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the context is a problem every time you mix computers and what you're doing on a computer. Let's say you record a CD, 16 bits/sample @ 44.1kHz. That's a bitrate of 16 * 44.1 = 705.6 kbit/s second right? If I want to send it over the LAN too? What if I need to allocate a memory buffer, is it still 705.6 kbit/s? And what if I want to store it to disk, do I need to allocate 705.6 kbit per second of music? Computers aren't not remotely consistent with themselves, a 100 Mbit LAN is 100,000,000 bits/second. Hard drives too but they're hardly the only ones, floppies weren't even consistent with themselves most being 1.44*1000*1024 bytes.</p><p>Things get confusing all the time because a 1 MB, 1 KHz (1024*1024*1000) bus is not equal to a 1 kB, 1MHz bus (1024*1000*1000) which is why everyone dealing with networks never used kilo = 1024. The 56k modem is 56,000 bits, ISDN is 64,000 bits and so on right up to SATA 6Gbit/s which is 6,000,000,000 Gbit/s (and even more confusing because it's in 8/10 bit encoding, but that's another story). So both inside and outside the machine we're switching between base 2 and base 10 all the time.</p><p>A particularly confusing item was codecs. Should they follow the "size" standard so a 128 kbit/s MP3 would take up 128 kbit/s, or the network standard so that a 128 kbit/s would take 128 kbit/s of network bandwidth? I think now most settled on k = 1000, that is to say if you encode a one second clip at 128 kbit/s it'll only take up 125 kbit on your disk. Confusing as fuck? Hell yeah. Let's just settle this and be done with it, with the i = base 2, without it base 10. Just forget the lame names, and let the prefixes do the talking. MB = megabyte, MiB = megabyte. That's what I'm doing at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the context is a problem every time you mix computers and what you 're doing on a computer .
Let 's say you record a CD , 16 bits/sample @ 44.1kHz .
That 's a bitrate of 16 * 44.1 = 705.6 kbit/s second right ?
If I want to send it over the LAN too ?
What if I need to allocate a memory buffer , is it still 705.6 kbit/s ?
And what if I want to store it to disk , do I need to allocate 705.6 kbit per second of music ?
Computers are n't not remotely consistent with themselves , a 100 Mbit LAN is 100,000,000 bits/second .
Hard drives too but they 're hardly the only ones , floppies were n't even consistent with themselves most being 1.44 * 1000 * 1024 bytes.Things get confusing all the time because a 1 MB , 1 KHz ( 1024 * 1024 * 1000 ) bus is not equal to a 1 kB , 1MHz bus ( 1024 * 1000 * 1000 ) which is why everyone dealing with networks never used kilo = 1024 .
The 56k modem is 56,000 bits , ISDN is 64,000 bits and so on right up to SATA 6Gbit/s which is 6,000,000,000 Gbit/s ( and even more confusing because it 's in 8/10 bit encoding , but that 's another story ) .
So both inside and outside the machine we 're switching between base 2 and base 10 all the time.A particularly confusing item was codecs .
Should they follow the " size " standard so a 128 kbit/s MP3 would take up 128 kbit/s , or the network standard so that a 128 kbit/s would take 128 kbit/s of network bandwidth ?
I think now most settled on k = 1000 , that is to say if you encode a one second clip at 128 kbit/s it 'll only take up 125 kbit on your disk .
Confusing as fuck ?
Hell yeah .
Let 's just settle this and be done with it , with the i = base 2 , without it base 10 .
Just forget the lame names , and let the prefixes do the talking .
MB = megabyte , MiB = megabyte .
That 's what I 'm doing at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the context is a problem every time you mix computers and what you're doing on a computer.
Let's say you record a CD, 16 bits/sample @ 44.1kHz.
That's a bitrate of 16 * 44.1 = 705.6 kbit/s second right?
If I want to send it over the LAN too?
What if I need to allocate a memory buffer, is it still 705.6 kbit/s?
And what if I want to store it to disk, do I need to allocate 705.6 kbit per second of music?
Computers aren't not remotely consistent with themselves, a 100 Mbit LAN is 100,000,000 bits/second.
Hard drives too but they're hardly the only ones, floppies weren't even consistent with themselves most being 1.44*1000*1024 bytes.Things get confusing all the time because a 1 MB, 1 KHz (1024*1024*1000) bus is not equal to a 1 kB, 1MHz bus (1024*1000*1000) which is why everyone dealing with networks never used kilo = 1024.
The 56k modem is 56,000 bits, ISDN is 64,000 bits and so on right up to SATA 6Gbit/s which is 6,000,000,000 Gbit/s (and even more confusing because it's in 8/10 bit encoding, but that's another story).
So both inside and outside the machine we're switching between base 2 and base 10 all the time.A particularly confusing item was codecs.
Should they follow the "size" standard so a 128 kbit/s MP3 would take up 128 kbit/s, or the network standard so that a 128 kbit/s would take 128 kbit/s of network bandwidth?
I think now most settled on k = 1000, that is to say if you encode a one second clip at 128 kbit/s it'll only take up 125 kbit on your disk.
Confusing as fuck?
Hell yeah.
Let's just settle this and be done with it, with the i = base 2, without it base 10.
Just forget the lame names, and let the prefixes do the talking.
MB = megabyte, MiB = megabyte.
That's what I'm doing at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644244</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269700800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Seriously, what's wrong with you?</p></div></blockquote><p>Nothing.  I an tell you exactly what will be wrong with you, if you keep that up.  Two things, actually: hairy palms, and blindness.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , what 's wrong with you ? Nothing .
I an tell you exactly what will be wrong with you , if you keep that up .
Two things , actually : hairy palms , and blindness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, what's wrong with you?Nothing.
I an tell you exactly what will be wrong with you, if you keep that up.
Two things, actually: hairy palms, and blindness.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640228</id>
	<title>Re:ubuntu joins apple...</title>
	<author>andrea.sartori</author>
	<datestamp>1269710700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if it is so, it's the wrong move. there is no such thing as a power of 2 which equals 1000. the base-10 measurement have little meaning in a computer.
if you are saying that we're using the wrong word for the right thing, or something like that, then the issue is very different: we have to convince however many people to start calling them "somethingelsebytes" instead of "kilo"bytes.
you may say that most people just want to know how much space is left on a disk for por... ehm, their documents. but then you would have a double standard -- common people unit and geek unit. i don't think it would be a good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if it is so , it 's the wrong move .
there is no such thing as a power of 2 which equals 1000. the base-10 measurement have little meaning in a computer .
if you are saying that we 're using the wrong word for the right thing , or something like that , then the issue is very different : we have to convince however many people to start calling them " somethingelsebytes " instead of " kilo " bytes .
you may say that most people just want to know how much space is left on a disk for por... ehm , their documents .
but then you would have a double standard -- common people unit and geek unit .
i do n't think it would be a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if it is so, it's the wrong move.
there is no such thing as a power of 2 which equals 1000. the base-10 measurement have little meaning in a computer.
if you are saying that we're using the wrong word for the right thing, or something like that, then the issue is very different: we have to convince however many people to start calling them "somethingelsebytes" instead of "kilo"bytes.
you may say that most people just want to know how much space is left on a disk for por... ehm, their documents.
but then you would have a double standard -- common people unit and geek unit.
i don't think it would be a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645560</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269718080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It wasn't a stupid mistake. It's intentional. Data is stored in bits, a single bit being represented by a 1 or a 0; binary. It makes more sense to measure something binary in base-2 than in base-10. There is no way to express 1000 bytes as a power of 2, making 2^10 the nearest equivalent for the kilobyte. Is it exact? No. But it works, and it makes sense if you know anything about binary.</p><p>On another note, I'll be switching to Fedora or Debian. This nonsense of trying to be Mac OSX is pissing me off royally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't a stupid mistake .
It 's intentional .
Data is stored in bits , a single bit being represented by a 1 or a 0 ; binary .
It makes more sense to measure something binary in base-2 than in base-10 .
There is no way to express 1000 bytes as a power of 2 , making 2 ^ 10 the nearest equivalent for the kilobyte .
Is it exact ?
No. But it works , and it makes sense if you know anything about binary.On another note , I 'll be switching to Fedora or Debian .
This nonsense of trying to be Mac OSX is pissing me off royally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't a stupid mistake.
It's intentional.
Data is stored in bits, a single bit being represented by a 1 or a 0; binary.
It makes more sense to measure something binary in base-2 than in base-10.
There is no way to express 1000 bytes as a power of 2, making 2^10 the nearest equivalent for the kilobyte.
Is it exact?
No. But it works, and it makes sense if you know anything about binary.On another note, I'll be switching to Fedora or Debian.
This nonsense of trying to be Mac OSX is pissing me off royally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640610</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying...</title>
	<author>Waffle Iron</author>
	<datestamp>1269712680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why should it be different for prefixes?</p></div><p>Because except for DRAM modules, the context for data quantities has *never* been unambiguous. So context doesn't resolve the issue. There are currently many apps that report file sizes in base 10, and many others that report them in pseudo base 2. This doesn't provide any useful context.</p><p>As a particularly stupid and long standing example, a "1.44 MB" floppy contains 1474560 bytes. That puts two conflicting "contexts" into a single number!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should it be different for prefixes ? Because except for DRAM modules , the context for data quantities has * never * been unambiguous .
So context does n't resolve the issue .
There are currently many apps that report file sizes in base 10 , and many others that report them in pseudo base 2 .
This does n't provide any useful context.As a particularly stupid and long standing example , a " 1.44 MB " floppy contains 1474560 bytes .
That puts two conflicting " contexts " into a single number !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should it be different for prefixes?Because except for DRAM modules, the context for data quantities has *never* been unambiguous.
So context doesn't resolve the issue.
There are currently many apps that report file sizes in base 10, and many others that report them in pseudo base 2.
This doesn't provide any useful context.As a particularly stupid and long standing example, a "1.44 MB" floppy contains 1474560 bytes.
That puts two conflicting "contexts" into a single number!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641618</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>badpazzword</author>
	<datestamp>1269719640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>US billion or UK billion?</htmltext>
<tokenext>US billion or UK billion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US billion or UK billion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645228</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Pence128</author>
	<datestamp>1269713160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1024 only makes sense if you're too lazy to multiply by 1000, and just shift 10 bits to the left instead. That is the <b>only reason.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>1024 only makes sense if you 're too lazy to multiply by 1000 , and just shift 10 bits to the left instead .
That is the only reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1024 only makes sense if you're too lazy to multiply by 1000, and just shift 10 bits to the left instead.
That is the only reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640784</id>
	<title>And the pussification/retardization...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269713940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>of computing continues...</p><p>Not to mention the blatant copying of CrapOSX...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of computing continues...Not to mention the blatant copying of CrapOSX.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of computing continues...Not to mention the blatant copying of CrapOSX...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641338</id>
	<title>How long does it take to download?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269717540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the Ubuntu units policy, network speed is measured in 1000s bits per second, while the file size in 1024s bytes. Calculate quickly now how long does it take to download a 300MiB file over 6Mbit/s connection?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the Ubuntu units policy , network speed is measured in 1000s bits per second , while the file size in 1024s bytes .
Calculate quickly now how long does it take to download a 300MiB file over 6Mbit/s connection ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the Ubuntu units policy, network speed is measured in 1000s bits per second, while the file size in 1024s bytes.
Calculate quickly now how long does it take to download a 300MiB file over 6Mbit/s connection?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640360</id>
	<title>Re:Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>punit\_r</author>
	<datestamp>1269711420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As long as they use the correct prefix, I don't really mind whether they use base 2 or 10 to display the numbers.</p></div><p>They should just use the correct prefix. i.e., base-2 for anything related to the file-system and computers.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Hard drives, on the other hand, have nothing that is fundamentally based on a power of 2. They arbitrarily use a sector size of 512 (or 4096) bytes, but everything else (number of heads, number of tracks, average number of sectors per track) has no power-of-2 connection. Therefore there's nothing wrong with reporting their size in SI notation.</p></div><p>Hard disk stores files, which have bytes which are basically base-2. Size of files, and one block of data is also in base-2. All file systems structures are in base-2 units. Most of the things that are exposed to the user on a hard disk "must" be in the same units. i.e., in base-2. Now, the hard disk manufacturers decided to go for SI notation for monetary gains as they could sell larger capacity drives (in Megabytes and Gigabytes) whereas the users expect to be storing files which are in Mebi and Gibibytes. Why fix the wrong thing. Instead, report everything in the "correct" units.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as they use the correct prefix , I do n't really mind whether they use base 2 or 10 to display the numbers.They should just use the correct prefix .
i.e. , base-2 for anything related to the file-system and computers.Hard drives , on the other hand , have nothing that is fundamentally based on a power of 2 .
They arbitrarily use a sector size of 512 ( or 4096 ) bytes , but everything else ( number of heads , number of tracks , average number of sectors per track ) has no power-of-2 connection .
Therefore there 's nothing wrong with reporting their size in SI notation.Hard disk stores files , which have bytes which are basically base-2 .
Size of files , and one block of data is also in base-2 .
All file systems structures are in base-2 units .
Most of the things that are exposed to the user on a hard disk " must " be in the same units .
i.e. , in base-2 .
Now , the hard disk manufacturers decided to go for SI notation for monetary gains as they could sell larger capacity drives ( in Megabytes and Gigabytes ) whereas the users expect to be storing files which are in Mebi and Gibibytes .
Why fix the wrong thing .
Instead , report everything in the " correct " units .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as they use the correct prefix, I don't really mind whether they use base 2 or 10 to display the numbers.They should just use the correct prefix.
i.e., base-2 for anything related to the file-system and computers.Hard drives, on the other hand, have nothing that is fundamentally based on a power of 2.
They arbitrarily use a sector size of 512 (or 4096) bytes, but everything else (number of heads, number of tracks, average number of sectors per track) has no power-of-2 connection.
Therefore there's nothing wrong with reporting their size in SI notation.Hard disk stores files, which have bytes which are basically base-2.
Size of files, and one block of data is also in base-2.
All file systems structures are in base-2 units.
Most of the things that are exposed to the user on a hard disk "must" be in the same units.
i.e., in base-2.
Now, the hard disk manufacturers decided to go for SI notation for monetary gains as they could sell larger capacity drives (in Megabytes and Gigabytes) whereas the users expect to be storing files which are in Mebi and Gibibytes.
Why fix the wrong thing.
Instead, report everything in the "correct" units.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640554</id>
	<title>Finally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269712380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about time that people started pulling their heads out of their asses and got this right.  It's still going to take some more time before we get rid of the ridiculous 1024 bullshit completely, but at least this is a start.  Why can't people understand that when we used to call 1024 bytes a kilobyte, it was an approximation?  Then stupid people took it and did the same thing with larger sizes because they didn't have the mental capacity to understand that simple idea, but it was okay for megabytes because it was still approximately correct, when speaking of whole megabytes.  Then we got to gigabytes, and the smart people realized what the stupid people had done, but by then it was too late, and a bajillion morons had started thinking that the idiots were right.  I applaud Ubuntu for taking this step towards making sense, and I encourage them to keep pushing in the right direction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time that people started pulling their heads out of their asses and got this right .
It 's still going to take some more time before we get rid of the ridiculous 1024 bullshit completely , but at least this is a start .
Why ca n't people understand that when we used to call 1024 bytes a kilobyte , it was an approximation ?
Then stupid people took it and did the same thing with larger sizes because they did n't have the mental capacity to understand that simple idea , but it was okay for megabytes because it was still approximately correct , when speaking of whole megabytes .
Then we got to gigabytes , and the smart people realized what the stupid people had done , but by then it was too late , and a bajillion morons had started thinking that the idiots were right .
I applaud Ubuntu for taking this step towards making sense , and I encourage them to keep pushing in the right direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time that people started pulling their heads out of their asses and got this right.
It's still going to take some more time before we get rid of the ridiculous 1024 bullshit completely, but at least this is a start.
Why can't people understand that when we used to call 1024 bytes a kilobyte, it was an approximation?
Then stupid people took it and did the same thing with larger sizes because they didn't have the mental capacity to understand that simple idea, but it was okay for megabytes because it was still approximately correct, when speaking of whole megabytes.
Then we got to gigabytes, and the smart people realized what the stupid people had done, but by then it was too late, and a bajillion morons had started thinking that the idiots were right.
I applaud Ubuntu for taking this step towards making sense, and I encourage them to keep pushing in the right direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644606</id>
	<title>Binary sizes hardly matter for files</title>
	<author>achurch</author>
	<datestamp>1269705300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I realize I'm coming in way late to this party, but why is everyone up in arms about this particular change?  (Aside from the obvious "I'm stuck in my ways, get off my lawn" reason.)  Outside of special cases like file-backed memory mappings, when is it <i>actually</i> useful to know the number of binary kilobytes/megabytes/gigabytes used by a file, as opposed to decimal units?  I'll agree those binary units were useful back when the ratio of filesystem size to block size was small, say 10^3:1 (I remember carefully watching free cluster counts on my DOS floppies, and being grateful when 1.2MB floppies offered 1-sector instead of 2-sector clusters).  But on modern systems, that ratio is more like 10^7 or 10^8:1, and unless you have OCD and absolutely have to know how every single filesystem block is being used, there's really no benefit to counting in blocks over any other unit.  So why not let old hacks pass into history and start counting the way every other field does?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize I 'm coming in way late to this party , but why is everyone up in arms about this particular change ?
( Aside from the obvious " I 'm stuck in my ways , get off my lawn " reason .
) Outside of special cases like file-backed memory mappings , when is it actually useful to know the number of binary kilobytes/megabytes/gigabytes used by a file , as opposed to decimal units ?
I 'll agree those binary units were useful back when the ratio of filesystem size to block size was small , say 10 ^ 3 : 1 ( I remember carefully watching free cluster counts on my DOS floppies , and being grateful when 1.2MB floppies offered 1-sector instead of 2-sector clusters ) .
But on modern systems , that ratio is more like 10 ^ 7 or 10 ^ 8 : 1 , and unless you have OCD and absolutely have to know how every single filesystem block is being used , there 's really no benefit to counting in blocks over any other unit .
So why not let old hacks pass into history and start counting the way every other field does ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize I'm coming in way late to this party, but why is everyone up in arms about this particular change?
(Aside from the obvious "I'm stuck in my ways, get off my lawn" reason.
)  Outside of special cases like file-backed memory mappings, when is it actually useful to know the number of binary kilobytes/megabytes/gigabytes used by a file, as opposed to decimal units?
I'll agree those binary units were useful back when the ratio of filesystem size to block size was small, say 10^3:1 (I remember carefully watching free cluster counts on my DOS floppies, and being grateful when 1.2MB floppies offered 1-sector instead of 2-sector clusters).
But on modern systems, that ratio is more like 10^7 or 10^8:1, and unless you have OCD and absolutely have to know how every single filesystem block is being used, there's really no benefit to counting in blocks over any other unit.
So why not let old hacks pass into history and start counting the way every other field does?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643356</id>
	<title>Re:This is the right way to do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269691260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Imperial units are only allowed in addition</p></div><p>I get tired of seeing this.  The US does not use, and <i>never has used</i>, imperial units.  Imperial units were created by the British in the 1820s.  US customary units originally came from Britain, but are older.  The units of length of the same (very close for a few years, then made exactly the same by treaty), but there are major differences in units of capacity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imperial units are only allowed in additionI get tired of seeing this .
The US does not use , and never has used , imperial units .
Imperial units were created by the British in the 1820s .
US customary units originally came from Britain , but are older .
The units of length of the same ( very close for a few years , then made exactly the same by treaty ) , but there are major differences in units of capacity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imperial units are only allowed in additionI get tired of seeing this.
The US does not use, and never has used, imperial units.
Imperial units were created by the British in the 1820s.
US customary units originally came from Britain, but are older.
The units of length of the same (very close for a few years, then made exactly the same by treaty), but there are major differences in units of capacity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096</id>
	<title>Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269709980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as they use the correct prefix, I don't really mind whether they use base 2 or 10 to display the numbers.</p><p>RAM sizes are naturally powers of 2 due to how the individual memory cells are addressed, so it makes sense for RAM capacity to always be listed in GiB.</p><p>Hard drives, on the other hand, have nothing that is fundamentally based on a power of 2. They arbitrarily use a sector size of 512 (or 4096) bytes, but everything else (number of heads, number of tracks, average number of sectors per track) has no power-of-2 connection. Therefore there's nothing wrong with reporting their size in SI notation.</p><p>The original shorthand of calling 1024 bytes a "K" was not too bad because it's only a 2.4\% error. However the error gets worse as you go up each level, and by the time you're talking about a TB/TiB it's something that people actually care about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as they use the correct prefix , I do n't really mind whether they use base 2 or 10 to display the numbers.RAM sizes are naturally powers of 2 due to how the individual memory cells are addressed , so it makes sense for RAM capacity to always be listed in GiB.Hard drives , on the other hand , have nothing that is fundamentally based on a power of 2 .
They arbitrarily use a sector size of 512 ( or 4096 ) bytes , but everything else ( number of heads , number of tracks , average number of sectors per track ) has no power-of-2 connection .
Therefore there 's nothing wrong with reporting their size in SI notation.The original shorthand of calling 1024 bytes a " K " was not too bad because it 's only a 2.4 \ % error .
However the error gets worse as you go up each level , and by the time you 're talking about a TB/TiB it 's something that people actually care about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as they use the correct prefix, I don't really mind whether they use base 2 or 10 to display the numbers.RAM sizes are naturally powers of 2 due to how the individual memory cells are addressed, so it makes sense for RAM capacity to always be listed in GiB.Hard drives, on the other hand, have nothing that is fundamentally based on a power of 2.
They arbitrarily use a sector size of 512 (or 4096) bytes, but everything else (number of heads, number of tracks, average number of sectors per track) has no power-of-2 connection.
Therefore there's nothing wrong with reporting their size in SI notation.The original shorthand of calling 1024 bytes a "K" was not too bad because it's only a 2.4\% error.
However the error gets worse as you go up each level, and by the time you're talking about a TB/TiB it's something that people actually care about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642110</id>
	<title>This is really stupid, IMO....</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1269723420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The people who are the most likely to actually be confused by base 10 vs base 2 probably aren't using Linux, even Ubuntu, in the first place.  If this change started with a more popular OS, like, say, future versions of Windows, it might make some sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who are the most likely to actually be confused by base 10 vs base 2 probably are n't using Linux , even Ubuntu , in the first place .
If this change started with a more popular OS , like , say , future versions of Windows , it might make some sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who are the most likely to actually be confused by base 10 vs base 2 probably aren't using Linux, even Ubuntu, in the first place.
If this change started with a more popular OS, like, say, future versions of Windows, it might make some sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643424</id>
	<title>bravo</title>
	<author>cathector</author>
	<datestamp>1269692040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i've been thinking in 1024-byte kilobytes since i first cut my teeth on the sinclair-1000, so i have a fondness for that measure as well, but it's clearly bad practice to mis-use SI units. sure it'll mean a decade or a half of confusion, but i think we should all welcome a switch here, and use other names for 2^10, 2^20, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 've been thinking in 1024-byte kilobytes since i first cut my teeth on the sinclair-1000 , so i have a fondness for that measure as well , but it 's clearly bad practice to mis-use SI units .
sure it 'll mean a decade or a half of confusion , but i think we should all welcome a switch here , and use other names for 2 ^ 10 , 2 ^ 20 , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i've been thinking in 1024-byte kilobytes since i first cut my teeth on the sinclair-1000, so i have a fondness for that measure as well, but it's clearly bad practice to mis-use SI units.
sure it'll mean a decade or a half of confusion, but i think we should all welcome a switch here, and use other names for 2^10, 2^20, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641472</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>aukset</author>
	<datestamp>1269718620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Re-read his post. He didn't say he can't change, he said (and you quoted) he does not WANT to change. Now I suggest you get off his lawn before he comes after you with his cane yelling things about punch card dimensions being measured in base 10 so everything else should be.</p><p>Its an entirely emotional reaction that old people seem to have a lot in regards to change.</p><p>Bye bye karma...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Re-read his post .
He did n't say he ca n't change , he said ( and you quoted ) he does not WANT to change .
Now I suggest you get off his lawn before he comes after you with his cane yelling things about punch card dimensions being measured in base 10 so everything else should be.Its an entirely emotional reaction that old people seem to have a lot in regards to change.Bye bye karma.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re-read his post.
He didn't say he can't change, he said (and you quoted) he does not WANT to change.
Now I suggest you get off his lawn before he comes after you with his cane yelling things about punch card dimensions being measured in base 10 so everything else should be.Its an entirely emotional reaction that old people seem to have a lot in regards to change.Bye bye karma...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646436</id>
	<title>Ubliguntory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269779700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How big is a niggerbyte?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How big is a niggerbyte ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How big is a niggerbyte?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640578</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>mmmmbeer</author>
	<datestamp>1269712500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember that unhappy people tend to be five to ten times more vocal than happy people.  Most of us who agree with this are just muttering, "Cool" and moving on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that unhappy people tend to be five to ten times more vocal than happy people .
Most of us who agree with this are just muttering , " Cool " and moving on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that unhappy people tend to be five to ten times more vocal than happy people.
Most of us who agree with this are just muttering, "Cool" and moving on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645314</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1269714240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A better comparison would be using metric units in the US, because metrics are based on SI and imperial units are more like the weird way bits and bytes are counted into kilobytes, megabytes etc."</p><p>There is nothing weird about it. Computers work in binary, not decimal, they count by powers of 2. You have no business being in IT if you don't get that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A better comparison would be using metric units in the US , because metrics are based on SI and imperial units are more like the weird way bits and bytes are counted into kilobytes , megabytes etc .
" There is nothing weird about it .
Computers work in binary , not decimal , they count by powers of 2 .
You have no business being in IT if you do n't get that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A better comparison would be using metric units in the US, because metrics are based on SI and imperial units are more like the weird way bits and bytes are counted into kilobytes, megabytes etc.
"There is nothing weird about it.
Computers work in binary, not decimal, they count by powers of 2.
You have no business being in IT if you don't get that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643940</id>
	<title>Re:And I thought geeks were supposed to be FLEXIBL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269697500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>go fuck yourself, you arrogant prick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>go fuck yourself , you arrogant prick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>go fuck yourself, you arrogant prick</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640300</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269711060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well, there's the matter of actually telling the *truth*, as the current base-2 values are flat-out, numerically, mathematically *wrong* values for KB, MB, GB.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>K is not an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI\_prefix#List\_of\_SI\_prefixes" title="wikipedia.org">SI prefix</a> [wikipedia.org]. And this has nothing to do with math, just definitions. Since K isn't an SI prefix, KB has no definition in SI, thus the computer definition (1024 bytes) is fine. Thus, KB is the name of the unit, not a prefixed unit or acronym.

</p><p>I think we should just switch to bits, as the communication field has done all along. Then you can use kbit, Mbit, Gbit, etc. without any confusion. Considering that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte#Size" title="wikipedia.org">byte itself isn't a specific number of bits</a> [wikipedia.org], even GiB doesn't really tell you how many bits you can store.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there 's the matter of actually telling the * truth * , as the current base-2 values are flat-out , numerically , mathematically * wrong * values for KB , MB , GB .
K is not an SI prefix [ wikipedia.org ] .
And this has nothing to do with math , just definitions .
Since K is n't an SI prefix , KB has no definition in SI , thus the computer definition ( 1024 bytes ) is fine .
Thus , KB is the name of the unit , not a prefixed unit or acronym .
I think we should just switch to bits , as the communication field has done all along .
Then you can use kbit , Mbit , Gbit , etc .
without any confusion .
Considering that byte itself is n't a specific number of bits [ wikipedia.org ] , even GiB does n't really tell you how many bits you can store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there's the matter of actually telling the *truth*, as the current base-2 values are flat-out, numerically, mathematically *wrong* values for KB, MB, GB.
K is not an SI prefix [wikipedia.org].
And this has nothing to do with math, just definitions.
Since K isn't an SI prefix, KB has no definition in SI, thus the computer definition (1024 bytes) is fine.
Thus, KB is the name of the unit, not a prefixed unit or acronym.
I think we should just switch to bits, as the communication field has done all along.
Then you can use kbit, Mbit, Gbit, etc.
without any confusion.
Considering that byte itself isn't a specific number of bits [wikipedia.org], even GiB doesn't really tell you how many bits you can store.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640380</id>
	<title>Just wait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269711540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait until we get desktop Quantum computers and how the units will get even more confusing....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait until we get desktop Quantum computers and how the units will get even more confusing... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait until we get desktop Quantum computers and how the units will get even more confusing....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641258</id>
	<title>rip off</title>
	<author>celle</author>
	<datestamp>1269716880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this trouble just because the hard drive companies wanted to rip-off the public on the size of their drives. 80?B used to mean 80?B when base 2 was used but now 80?B is about 74?B with base 10. It's always been marketing BS that has a financial benefit for the drive makers nevermind stomping over industry standards. Shuttleworth/ubuntu you should know better and should be ashamed if you don't. 1k base 2 is 1024, 1k base 10 is 1000, and modern computers do everything as base 2, get over it. Just write the damn thing as 1k subscript 2 and 1k subscript 10 just like the rest of the math world and be done. Maybe even increase the intelligence of the public, who'd of thought. Damn marketing pussies.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/rant</p><p>Ditto for Steve Jobs and I know he knows better than this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this trouble just because the hard drive companies wanted to rip-off the public on the size of their drives .
80 ? B used to mean 80 ? B when base 2 was used but now 80 ? B is about 74 ? B with base 10 .
It 's always been marketing BS that has a financial benefit for the drive makers nevermind stomping over industry standards .
Shuttleworth/ubuntu you should know better and should be ashamed if you do n't .
1k base 2 is 1024 , 1k base 10 is 1000 , and modern computers do everything as base 2 , get over it .
Just write the damn thing as 1k subscript 2 and 1k subscript 10 just like the rest of the math world and be done .
Maybe even increase the intelligence of the public , who 'd of thought .
Damn marketing pussies .
/rantDitto for Steve Jobs and I know he knows better than this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this trouble just because the hard drive companies wanted to rip-off the public on the size of their drives.
80?B used to mean 80?B when base 2 was used but now 80?B is about 74?B with base 10.
It's always been marketing BS that has a financial benefit for the drive makers nevermind stomping over industry standards.
Shuttleworth/ubuntu you should know better and should be ashamed if you don't.
1k base 2 is 1024, 1k base 10 is 1000, and modern computers do everything as base 2, get over it.
Just write the damn thing as 1k subscript 2 and 1k subscript 10 just like the rest of the math world and be done.
Maybe even increase the intelligence of the public, who'd of thought.
Damn marketing pussies.
/rantDitto for Steve Jobs and I know he knows better than this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640818</id>
	<title>Re:Bye Ubuntu, was nice knowing you.</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1269714060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, it's hard for me to care less about any of this.  Now that Slashdot has an Ubuntu icon, we need an Ubuntu section so I can opt out of it without opting out of Linux.  I readily accept that Ubuntu is popular among Linux distros and that some or many people might care to read junk like this on Slashdot, but I really don't need blow-by-blow coverage of every little change they make to their distro.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , it 's hard for me to care less about any of this .
Now that Slashdot has an Ubuntu icon , we need an Ubuntu section so I can opt out of it without opting out of Linux .
I readily accept that Ubuntu is popular among Linux distros and that some or many people might care to read junk like this on Slashdot , but I really do n't need blow-by-blow coverage of every little change they make to their distro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, it's hard for me to care less about any of this.
Now that Slashdot has an Ubuntu icon, we need an Ubuntu section so I can opt out of it without opting out of Linux.
I readily accept that Ubuntu is popular among Linux distros and that some or many people might care to read junk like this on Slashdot, but I really don't need blow-by-blow coverage of every little change they make to their distro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640486</id>
	<title>While we're about it...</title>
	<author>YuppieScum</author>
	<datestamp>1269712140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... let's make Pi equal to 3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... let 's make Pi equal to 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... let's make Pi equal to 3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642646</id>
	<title>Re:Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>PhunkySchtuff</author>
	<datestamp>1269684540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Hard drives, on the other hand, have nothing that is fundamentally based on a power of 2.</p></div><p>Well--except that <i>pesky</i> material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1' state or a '0' state.  Most people call that a 'bit'.  Strangely enough, that 'binary' state is conducive to measuring in powers of two...</p></div><p>Yes, except for that <i>pesky</i> fact that the number of 0's and 1's that you can fit on a platter in a disk is a completely arbitrary number and has no relation to a number that is an even power of two. RAM on the other hand, due to the way it is constructed and addressed, does have an inherent relation to a number that is a power of two.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard drives , on the other hand , have nothing that is fundamentally based on a power of 2.Well--except that pesky material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1 ' state or a '0 ' state .
Most people call that a 'bit' .
Strangely enough , that 'binary ' state is conducive to measuring in powers of two...Yes , except for that pesky fact that the number of 0 's and 1 's that you can fit on a platter in a disk is a completely arbitrary number and has no relation to a number that is an even power of two .
RAM on the other hand , due to the way it is constructed and addressed , does have an inherent relation to a number that is a power of two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard drives, on the other hand, have nothing that is fundamentally based on a power of 2.Well--except that pesky material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1' state or a '0' state.
Most people call that a 'bit'.
Strangely enough, that 'binary' state is conducive to measuring in powers of two...Yes, except for that pesky fact that the number of 0's and 1's that you can fit on a platter in a disk is a completely arbitrary number and has no relation to a number that is an even power of two.
RAM on the other hand, due to the way it is constructed and addressed, does have an inherent relation to a number that is a power of two.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640416</id>
	<title>Re:ubuntu joins apple...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269711720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is, it's been wrong for a long time, and is an accepted measurement by everyone (except HDD manufacturers).<br>Switching now causes more problems than it solves.</p><p>It's not like a switch from imperial to metric which could have real benefits, the only time KB is used is to refer to data within the context of a computer system.<br>There is no need to ever convert between contexts (would you ever use KB as a distance or weight measurement?).</p><p>So the only time when KiB and GiB are important is for "How much is 6GB in KB?" questions, and do we really want to screw ourselves up during the transition for trivial questions like that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , it 's been wrong for a long time , and is an accepted measurement by everyone ( except HDD manufacturers ) .Switching now causes more problems than it solves.It 's not like a switch from imperial to metric which could have real benefits , the only time KB is used is to refer to data within the context of a computer system.There is no need to ever convert between contexts ( would you ever use KB as a distance or weight measurement ?
) .So the only time when KiB and GiB are important is for " How much is 6GB in KB ?
" questions , and do we really want to screw ourselves up during the transition for trivial questions like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, it's been wrong for a long time, and is an accepted measurement by everyone (except HDD manufacturers).Switching now causes more problems than it solves.It's not like a switch from imperial to metric which could have real benefits, the only time KB is used is to refer to data within the context of a computer system.There is no need to ever convert between contexts (would you ever use KB as a distance or weight measurement?
).So the only time when KiB and GiB are important is for "How much is 6GB in KB?
" questions, and do we really want to screw ourselves up during the transition for trivial questions like that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640100</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269709980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fixing human language is next.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fixing human language is next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fixing human language is next.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640310</id>
	<title>WRONG: Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>yet-another-lobbyist</author>
	<datestamp>1269711120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This does not make sense: if you switch from base-2 to base-10, the number will actually get larger. So 1 kB will then read 1.024 kB and so on. This is why HD manufacturers are using this trick (make it look larger). So this "trick" would make your OS look like it's using more space. Thus it can't be the reason for the switch. Conspiracy, conspiracy! (Or maybe it's just because they finally want to get it right?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This does not make sense : if you switch from base-2 to base-10 , the number will actually get larger .
So 1 kB will then read 1.024 kB and so on .
This is why HD manufacturers are using this trick ( make it look larger ) .
So this " trick " would make your OS look like it 's using more space .
Thus it ca n't be the reason for the switch .
Conspiracy , conspiracy !
( Or maybe it 's just because they finally want to get it right ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This does not make sense: if you switch from base-2 to base-10, the number will actually get larger.
So 1 kB will then read 1.024 kB and so on.
This is why HD manufacturers are using this trick (make it look larger).
So this "trick" would make your OS look like it's using more space.
Thus it can't be the reason for the switch.
Conspiracy, conspiracy!
(Or maybe it's just because they finally want to get it right?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641170</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>l3v1</author>
	<datestamp>1269716400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Saying that 1024 is a kilo never made any sense to anyone</i> <br> <br>
To anyone except the countless people who actually knew their way around computers and what they were doing. Flexiblity to adapt to situational changes of a field has nothing to do with idiots changing the nomenclature of a well established technical, engineering and scientific field because they can't fathom words can mean different things in different fields and contexts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying that 1024 is a kilo never made any sense to anyone To anyone except the countless people who actually knew their way around computers and what they were doing .
Flexiblity to adapt to situational changes of a field has nothing to do with idiots changing the nomenclature of a well established technical , engineering and scientific field because they ca n't fathom words can mean different things in different fields and contexts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying that 1024 is a kilo never made any sense to anyone  
To anyone except the countless people who actually knew their way around computers and what they were doing.
Flexiblity to adapt to situational changes of a field has nothing to do with idiots changing the nomenclature of a well established technical, engineering and scientific field because they can't fathom words can mean different things in different fields and contexts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641692</id>
	<title>Re:This is the right way to do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269720300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RAM can absolutely have sizes other than powers of two. We don't make sizes other than powers of two because that would not be the most efficient use of address lines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RAM can absolutely have sizes other than powers of two .
We do n't make sizes other than powers of two because that would not be the most efficient use of address lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RAM can absolutely have sizes other than powers of two.
We don't make sizes other than powers of two because that would not be the most efficient use of address lines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643904</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269696960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I'm really glad we're finally entering an age where computers represent datasizes in units people can understand.</p></div><p>yeah.. because no one understood what the size of anything was till now.  except, or course, for people who did, and see this as completely silly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really glad we 're finally entering an age where computers represent datasizes in units people can understand.yeah.. because no one understood what the size of anything was till now .
except , or course , for people who did , and see this as completely silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm really glad we're finally entering an age where computers represent datasizes in units people can understand.yeah.. because no one understood what the size of anything was till now.
except, or course, for people who did, and see this as completely silly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639954</id>
	<title>ubuntu joins apple...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269709080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple did this with Snow Leopard, which makes me a cranky geek.</p><p>Why can't the OS manufacturers pressure the hard drive companies to market their sizes correctly? =(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple did this with Snow Leopard , which makes me a cranky geek.Why ca n't the OS manufacturers pressure the hard drive companies to market their sizes correctly ?
= (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple did this with Snow Leopard, which makes me a cranky geek.Why can't the OS manufacturers pressure the hard drive companies to market their sizes correctly?
=(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645178</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying...</title>
	<author>Pence128</author>
	<datestamp>1269712320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>nothing in computers is measured in base 2. or do you have a 1110100011010100101001010001000000000000 byte hard drive?</htmltext>
<tokenext>nothing in computers is measured in base 2. or do you have a 1110100011010100101001010001000000000000 byte hard drive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nothing in computers is measured in base 2. or do you have a 1110100011010100101001010001000000000000 byte hard drive?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31655106</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>dingen</author>
	<datestamp>1269864180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell does the way semiconductors work have to do with how you represent data to users?</p><p>People prefer to work with base-10 numbers. That's why the metric system is used by the entire civilized world. So for the sake of usability and to be consistent with other units people are familiair with, working with base-10 is the only option that makes any sense.</p><p>So what if things internally are kept in a base-2 system or otherwise? It's not like we're looking at raw CPU instructions when using our computers or something. The user interface is the perfect place to translate all values into units that the people using the computer can work with.</p><p>People know kilo == 1000. Manufacturers of harddisks have been abusing this for a long time. It's a great idea to take away all the confusion and simply present all units in base-10 to the user, so their 500 GB harddisk can actually hold 500 gigabytes, made out of 500000 megabytes, made out of 500000000 kilobytes.</p><p>It's a great development for everyone, there are only pros and no real cons, except for the 1\% of the world's population who think 1024 makes sense because that's what they're used to. But luckily for them, there is Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell does the way semiconductors work have to do with how you represent data to users ? People prefer to work with base-10 numbers .
That 's why the metric system is used by the entire civilized world .
So for the sake of usability and to be consistent with other units people are familiair with , working with base-10 is the only option that makes any sense.So what if things internally are kept in a base-2 system or otherwise ?
It 's not like we 're looking at raw CPU instructions when using our computers or something .
The user interface is the perfect place to translate all values into units that the people using the computer can work with.People know kilo = = 1000 .
Manufacturers of harddisks have been abusing this for a long time .
It 's a great idea to take away all the confusion and simply present all units in base-10 to the user , so their 500 GB harddisk can actually hold 500 gigabytes , made out of 500000 megabytes , made out of 500000000 kilobytes.It 's a great development for everyone , there are only pros and no real cons , except for the 1 \ % of the world 's population who think 1024 makes sense because that 's what they 're used to .
But luckily for them , there is Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell does the way semiconductors work have to do with how you represent data to users?People prefer to work with base-10 numbers.
That's why the metric system is used by the entire civilized world.
So for the sake of usability and to be consistent with other units people are familiair with, working with base-10 is the only option that makes any sense.So what if things internally are kept in a base-2 system or otherwise?
It's not like we're looking at raw CPU instructions when using our computers or something.
The user interface is the perfect place to translate all values into units that the people using the computer can work with.People know kilo == 1000.
Manufacturers of harddisks have been abusing this for a long time.
It's a great idea to take away all the confusion and simply present all units in base-10 to the user, so their 500 GB harddisk can actually hold 500 gigabytes, made out of 500000 megabytes, made out of 500000000 kilobytes.It's a great development for everyone, there are only pros and no real cons, except for the 1\% of the world's population who think 1024 makes sense because that's what they're used to.
But luckily for them, there is Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640910</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>Indigo</author>
	<datestamp>1269714780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I'm surprised by the majority here that is against this. What kind of nerds exactly are you?</p><p>We're the kind of nerds that understand that almost all computers are based on bits - binary digits - capable of holding exactly 2 values.</p><p>We're the kind of nerds that understand that a fixed number of bits - as found in the registers and address buses of bit-based-computers, and in the data items used in uncountable storage media and file formats - can store, or address, exactly some power-of-2 number of values.</p><p>We're the kind of nerds that understand *why* binary quantities are the fundamental units of computing, and why the binary system is the natural and proper way to work with them.</p><p>People developing analog, quantum, or decimal-based systems should certainly do whatever's right for them, but for the vast majority of systems, binary is what's right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 'm surprised by the majority here that is against this .
What kind of nerds exactly are you ? We 're the kind of nerds that understand that almost all computers are based on bits - binary digits - capable of holding exactly 2 values.We 're the kind of nerds that understand that a fixed number of bits - as found in the registers and address buses of bit-based-computers , and in the data items used in uncountable storage media and file formats - can store , or address , exactly some power-of-2 number of values.We 're the kind of nerds that understand * why * binary quantities are the fundamental units of computing , and why the binary system is the natural and proper way to work with them.People developing analog , quantum , or decimal-based systems should certainly do whatever 's right for them , but for the vast majority of systems , binary is what 's right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I'm surprised by the majority here that is against this.
What kind of nerds exactly are you?We're the kind of nerds that understand that almost all computers are based on bits - binary digits - capable of holding exactly 2 values.We're the kind of nerds that understand that a fixed number of bits - as found in the registers and address buses of bit-based-computers, and in the data items used in uncountable storage media and file formats - can store, or address, exactly some power-of-2 number of values.We're the kind of nerds that understand *why* binary quantities are the fundamental units of computing, and why the binary system is the natural and proper way to work with them.People developing analog, quantum, or decimal-based systems should certainly do whatever's right for them, but for the vast majority of systems, binary is what's right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641656</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269719940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have a 6MB sound file encoded at 128kbps and a 4MB sound file encoded at 200kbps.  They both started streaming in the same direction over a 300kbps network at the same time.</p><p>Which sound file will finish first?</p><p>I'm half joking, but base 10 has been the standard for storage and communications for a long time.  Base 2 units make sense in fewer places than most people realize.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a 6MB sound file encoded at 128kbps and a 4MB sound file encoded at 200kbps .
They both started streaming in the same direction over a 300kbps network at the same time.Which sound file will finish first ? I 'm half joking , but base 10 has been the standard for storage and communications for a long time .
Base 2 units make sense in fewer places than most people realize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a 6MB sound file encoded at 128kbps and a 4MB sound file encoded at 200kbps.
They both started streaming in the same direction over a 300kbps network at the same time.Which sound file will finish first?I'm half joking, but base 10 has been the standard for storage and communications for a long time.
Base 2 units make sense in fewer places than most people realize.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641732</id>
	<title>Re:And I thought geeks were supposed to be FLEXIBL</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1269720420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>at least on the computer systems developed by flexible-enough-minded people who are both willing to change and willing to correct a long-confusing problem.<br></i><br>And that consists of one potential release of Ubuntu, and one 6 month old release of OSX?</p><p>Do you really believe that an extremely minor share of operating systems changing to a new set of units will make which unit people are referring to MORE clear?  How?<br><i><br>Computers are and always have been an aspect of change in our society. Get over it and get with the program.<br></i><br>Being opposed to change because it's change is foolish.  Being in favor of change because it's somehow "inevitable" is at least as equally foolish.  Do you just roll over whenever anything comes along anywhere?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>at least on the computer systems developed by flexible-enough-minded people who are both willing to change and willing to correct a long-confusing problem.And that consists of one potential release of Ubuntu , and one 6 month old release of OSX ? Do you really believe that an extremely minor share of operating systems changing to a new set of units will make which unit people are referring to MORE clear ?
How ? Computers are and always have been an aspect of change in our society .
Get over it and get with the program.Being opposed to change because it 's change is foolish .
Being in favor of change because it 's somehow " inevitable " is at least as equally foolish .
Do you just roll over whenever anything comes along anywhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at least on the computer systems developed by flexible-enough-minded people who are both willing to change and willing to correct a long-confusing problem.And that consists of one potential release of Ubuntu, and one 6 month old release of OSX?Do you really believe that an extremely minor share of operating systems changing to a new set of units will make which unit people are referring to MORE clear?
How?Computers are and always have been an aspect of change in our society.
Get over it and get with the program.Being opposed to change because it's change is foolish.
Being in favor of change because it's somehow "inevitable" is at least as equally foolish.
Do you just roll over whenever anything comes along anywhere?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646034</id>
	<title>Mac OS X (10.6) did this too...</title>
	<author>Secret Rabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1269769800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I submitted a bug report.  Computers work in powers of two.  Deal with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I submitted a bug report .
Computers work in powers of two .
Deal with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I submitted a bug report.
Computers work in powers of two.
Deal with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642858</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1269686280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Silly question but can you explain the "mbit/s" vs "Mbit/s" you have at the end of your post?<br>I'm very, very rusty on terminology despite being in the industry for over a decade, I guess being lazy and getting older I don't normally care.</p><p>I was under the impression that 5MB/s is 5 megabytes per second and 5Mb/s is 5 megabits per second.<br>Is this correct, am I wrong?<br>or am I thinking incorrectly and it's 5Mb/s is 5 megabytes and 5mb/s is 5 megabits? (small 'b' for both either way)<br>Which letters need to be capitalised?</p><p>I note you refer to Mbit and mbit (still with the bit at the end) is this a mistake on your part or is there another term I'm not aware of in play here?<br>Can someone please explain, I realise it's a tangent but it could be an informative subthread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Silly question but can you explain the " mbit/s " vs " Mbit/s " you have at the end of your post ? I 'm very , very rusty on terminology despite being in the industry for over a decade , I guess being lazy and getting older I do n't normally care.I was under the impression that 5MB/s is 5 megabytes per second and 5Mb/s is 5 megabits per second.Is this correct , am I wrong ? or am I thinking incorrectly and it 's 5Mb/s is 5 megabytes and 5mb/s is 5 megabits ?
( small 'b ' for both either way ) Which letters need to be capitalised ? I note you refer to Mbit and mbit ( still with the bit at the end ) is this a mistake on your part or is there another term I 'm not aware of in play here ? Can someone please explain , I realise it 's a tangent but it could be an informative subthread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silly question but can you explain the "mbit/s" vs "Mbit/s" you have at the end of your post?I'm very, very rusty on terminology despite being in the industry for over a decade, I guess being lazy and getting older I don't normally care.I was under the impression that 5MB/s is 5 megabytes per second and 5Mb/s is 5 megabits per second.Is this correct, am I wrong?or am I thinking incorrectly and it's 5Mb/s is 5 megabytes and 5mb/s is 5 megabits?
(small 'b' for both either way)Which letters need to be capitalised?I note you refer to Mbit and mbit (still with the bit at the end) is this a mistake on your part or is there another term I'm not aware of in play here?Can someone please explain, I realise it's a tangent but it could be an informative subthread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31654780</id>
	<title>Re:This is the right way to do it</title>
	<author>cffrost</author>
	<datestamp>1269860100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Grow up!</p></div><p>You're not the boss of me!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Grow up ! You 're not the boss of me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Grow up!You're not the boss of me!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642844</id>
	<title>People don't get it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269686160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is good.  It means RAM and flash drives will be measured, EXPLICITLY, in binary units like GiB, and software will be able to use units for math because they will have been clearly and universally defined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is good .
It means RAM and flash drives will be measured , EXPLICITLY , in binary units like GiB , and software will be able to use units for math because they will have been clearly and universally defined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is good.
It means RAM and flash drives will be measured, EXPLICITLY, in binary units like GiB, and software will be able to use units for math because they will have been clearly and universally defined.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646404</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>DerPflanz</author>
	<datestamp>1269778740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and base-2 is the natural unit for measuring information</p></div><p>Why? Just because you calculate capacity like that? It is quite nonsense if you ask me. It is the same weird thinking that makes you define database field lengths base 2 (is a address line really 64 characters? Why not 50?). I admit I do it too, but it is based on nothing. Only on the fact that you 'just do it that way'. Which is wrong. You can easily count sizes base-10. You can easily count information base-10. It's arbitrary, and because of that, it is better to use base-10, because it is more used around you (except for USians maybe that still live in the imperial units).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and base-2 is the natural unit for measuring informationWhy ?
Just because you calculate capacity like that ?
It is quite nonsense if you ask me .
It is the same weird thinking that makes you define database field lengths base 2 ( is a address line really 64 characters ?
Why not 50 ? ) .
I admit I do it too , but it is based on nothing .
Only on the fact that you 'just do it that way' .
Which is wrong .
You can easily count sizes base-10 .
You can easily count information base-10 .
It 's arbitrary , and because of that , it is better to use base-10 , because it is more used around you ( except for USians maybe that still live in the imperial units ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and base-2 is the natural unit for measuring informationWhy?
Just because you calculate capacity like that?
It is quite nonsense if you ask me.
It is the same weird thinking that makes you define database field lengths base 2 (is a address line really 64 characters?
Why not 50?).
I admit I do it too, but it is based on nothing.
Only on the fact that you 'just do it that way'.
Which is wrong.
You can easily count sizes base-10.
You can easily count information base-10.
It's arbitrary, and because of that, it is better to use base-10, because it is more used around you (except for USians maybe that still live in the imperial units).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366</id>
	<title>Bye Ubuntu, was nice knowing you.</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1269711420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've used Ubuntu exclusively on my desktops for several years now.  It's nice to know that I can always switch to another distro when they do something BAT SHIT INSANE like this:  <a href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UnitsPolicy" title="ubuntu.com">https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UnitsPolicy</a> [ubuntu.com] <br> <br>
Change the GUI window buttons from right to left?  Meh.  Change the way file sizes are read so that User X and User Y see different file sizes using the same filesystem, even potentially the same remotely mounted disk?<br> <br>
Now I have to draft a letter to our research department telling them to stay the hell away from Ubuntu because their data will potentially be wrong (unless they take pains to remember the kilo=/=kibi switch).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used Ubuntu exclusively on my desktops for several years now .
It 's nice to know that I can always switch to another distro when they do something BAT SHIT INSANE like this : https : //wiki.ubuntu.com/UnitsPolicy [ ubuntu.com ] Change the GUI window buttons from right to left ?
Meh. Change the way file sizes are read so that User X and User Y see different file sizes using the same filesystem , even potentially the same remotely mounted disk ?
Now I have to draft a letter to our research department telling them to stay the hell away from Ubuntu because their data will potentially be wrong ( unless they take pains to remember the kilo = / = kibi switch ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used Ubuntu exclusively on my desktops for several years now.
It's nice to know that I can always switch to another distro when they do something BAT SHIT INSANE like this:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UnitsPolicy [ubuntu.com]  
Change the GUI window buttons from right to left?
Meh.  Change the way file sizes are read so that User X and User Y see different file sizes using the same filesystem, even potentially the same remotely mounted disk?
Now I have to draft a letter to our research department telling them to stay the hell away from Ubuntu because their data will potentially be wrong (unless they take pains to remember the kilo=/=kibi switch).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643472</id>
	<title>Summary is wrong, wrong, wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269692520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"kilo" is not a binary prefix. And while it is possible to "represent" 1 kB (1000 bytes) as 1024 bytes, that representation would require 24 redundant bytes. That's not what Ubuntu was doing previously. They were using the units wrong. Now they've switched not from, but <strong>to</strong> binary prefixes: kibi-, mebi- etc. -- apps have the choice to use these or use the decimal prefixes as they have always been defined: to denote decimal factors. Everything as should be. I just wonder what took them so long to acknowledge the standard, and why Slashdot editors are so dense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" kilo " is not a binary prefix .
And while it is possible to " represent " 1 kB ( 1000 bytes ) as 1024 bytes , that representation would require 24 redundant bytes .
That 's not what Ubuntu was doing previously .
They were using the units wrong .
Now they 've switched not from , but to binary prefixes : kibi- , mebi- etc .
-- apps have the choice to use these or use the decimal prefixes as they have always been defined : to denote decimal factors .
Everything as should be .
I just wonder what took them so long to acknowledge the standard , and why Slashdot editors are so dense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"kilo" is not a binary prefix.
And while it is possible to "represent" 1 kB (1000 bytes) as 1024 bytes, that representation would require 24 redundant bytes.
That's not what Ubuntu was doing previously.
They were using the units wrong.
Now they've switched not from, but to binary prefixes: kibi-, mebi- etc.
-- apps have the choice to use these or use the decimal prefixes as they have always been defined: to denote decimal factors.
Everything as should be.
I just wonder what took them so long to acknowledge the standard, and why Slashdot editors are so dense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640168</id>
	<title>Re:ubuntu joins apple...</title>
	<author>Svartalf</author>
	<datestamp>1269710400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, all they did was apply the nearest whole base-2 value that was related- which at the time that it was done, made sense after a fashion (you're not dealing in base 10 numbers...).</p><p>There's 10 types of people that get binary numbering out of the gate and transparently- the other type is the ones that consider this stuff a "problem".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , all they did was apply the nearest whole base-2 value that was related- which at the time that it was done , made sense after a fashion ( you 're not dealing in base 10 numbers... ) .There 's 10 types of people that get binary numbering out of the gate and transparently- the other type is the ones that consider this stuff a " problem " .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, all they did was apply the nearest whole base-2 value that was related- which at the time that it was done, made sense after a fashion (you're not dealing in base 10 numbers...).There's 10 types of people that get binary numbering out of the gate and transparently- the other type is the ones that consider this stuff a "problem".
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644324</id>
	<title>DON'T DO IT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269701520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have two machines, with 1GB and 2GB sticks of memory in them. I've never bought a "1.07GB" or "2.14GB" stick of memory, that's not the standard. "Binary megabytes" were invented by hard drive manufacturers to make hard drives seem bigger than they are; that's the only reason to have "another standard." Bullshit. My first real "computer" was a Commodore 64, with 64KB of RAM; they never manufactured the "Commodore 65" (64KB = 65,536 bytes). Mac OS X's last update did the same bullshit, and that's just another reason I will never use that OS, even on a "hackintosh."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have two machines , with 1GB and 2GB sticks of memory in them .
I 've never bought a " 1.07GB " or " 2.14GB " stick of memory , that 's not the standard .
" Binary megabytes " were invented by hard drive manufacturers to make hard drives seem bigger than they are ; that 's the only reason to have " another standard .
" Bullshit .
My first real " computer " was a Commodore 64 , with 64KB of RAM ; they never manufactured the " Commodore 65 " ( 64KB = 65,536 bytes ) .
Mac OS X 's last update did the same bullshit , and that 's just another reason I will never use that OS , even on a " hackintosh .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have two machines, with 1GB and 2GB sticks of memory in them.
I've never bought a "1.07GB" or "2.14GB" stick of memory, that's not the standard.
"Binary megabytes" were invented by hard drive manufacturers to make hard drives seem bigger than they are; that's the only reason to have "another standard.
" Bullshit.
My first real "computer" was a Commodore 64, with 64KB of RAM; they never manufactured the "Commodore 65" (64KB = 65,536 bytes).
Mac OS X's last update did the same bullshit, and that's just another reason I will never use that OS, even on a "hackintosh.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641408</id>
	<title>Re:Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269718080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh?</p><p>Your post makes no sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ? Your post makes no sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?Your post makes no sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643152</id>
	<title>Kelly-Bootle Standard Unit</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1269688860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://xkcd.com/394/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">Obligatory XKCD</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obligatory XKCD [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641766</id>
	<title>Re:Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269720660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well--except that pesky material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1' state or a '0' state. Most people call that a 'bit'. Strangely enough, that 'binary' state is conducive to measuring in powers of two...</p></div><p>Yah, except just like in communications, the exact number of those binary states returned is completely variable, and it's neither the hard drive or network adaptor's job to decide wether the underlying data represents 8/32/64/40/24/15/1012 bit data structures.</p><p>Base 2 only makes sense where you need to represent a discrete number of bits, not streams or buckets of them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well--except that pesky material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1 ' state or a '0 ' state .
Most people call that a 'bit' .
Strangely enough , that 'binary ' state is conducive to measuring in powers of two...Yah , except just like in communications , the exact number of those binary states returned is completely variable , and it 's neither the hard drive or network adaptor 's job to decide wether the underlying data represents 8/32/64/40/24/15/1012 bit data structures.Base 2 only makes sense where you need to represent a discrete number of bits , not streams or buckets of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well--except that pesky material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1' state or a '0' state.
Most people call that a 'bit'.
Strangely enough, that 'binary' state is conducive to measuring in powers of two...Yah, except just like in communications, the exact number of those binary states returned is completely variable, and it's neither the hard drive or network adaptor's job to decide wether the underlying data represents 8/32/64/40/24/15/1012 bit data structures.Base 2 only makes sense where you need to represent a discrete number of bits, not streams or buckets of them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640306</id>
	<title>Re:Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>andrea.sartori</author>
	<datestamp>1269711120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so we have a disk which size is expressed in base-10 while the files it contains are sized in base-2? then why not listing the <i>numbers</i> of files in directories in hex... just for the hell of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>so we have a disk which size is expressed in base-10 while the files it contains are sized in base-2 ?
then why not listing the numbers of files in directories in hex... just for the hell of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so we have a disk which size is expressed in base-10 while the files it contains are sized in base-2?
then why not listing the numbers of files in directories in hex... just for the hell of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643320</id>
	<title>Kilograms per kilobytes?</title>
	<author>marciot</author>
	<datestamp>1269690660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will this in any way affect how many kilograms my laptop will weight when its hard disk is full versus when it is empty?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this in any way affect how many kilograms my laptop will weight when its hard disk is full versus when it is empty ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will this in any way affect how many kilograms my laptop will weight when its hard disk is full versus when it is empty?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641832</id>
	<title>Chrome?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269721320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like Canonical is trying to peeve off Ubuntu users so then they can drop customer base and focus their full attention on developing Pyro Linux... er, Chrome OS for GOvernment OGLE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like Canonical is trying to peeve off Ubuntu users so then they can drop customer base and focus their full attention on developing Pyro Linux... er , Chrome OS for GOvernment OGLE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like Canonical is trying to peeve off Ubuntu users so then they can drop customer base and focus their full attention on developing Pyro Linux... er, Chrome OS for GOvernment OGLE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643764</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>swilver</author>
	<datestamp>1269695760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Filenames can't be longer than 8 characters and now they can</p></div></blockquote><p>It was more like, they could, then they couldn't, and then they could again but this time with an ugly hack.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Filenames ca n't be longer than 8 characters and now they canIt was more like , they could , then they could n't , and then they could again but this time with an ugly hack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filenames can't be longer than 8 characters and now they canIt was more like, they could, then they couldn't, and then they could again but this time with an ugly hack.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641688</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269720240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The 56k modem is 56,000 bits<br>Bad example.  The 56k modem is really 57600bps.  Modem speeds are all multiples of 2400bps: 9600bps, 14.4kbps, 19.2kbps, 28.8kbps, 33.6kbps</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The 56k modem is 56,000 bitsBad example .
The 56k modem is really 57600bps .
Modem speeds are all multiples of 2400bps : 9600bps , 14.4kbps , 19.2kbps , 28.8kbps , 33.6kbps</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The 56k modem is 56,000 bitsBad example.
The 56k modem is really 57600bps.
Modem speeds are all multiples of 2400bps: 9600bps, 14.4kbps, 19.2kbps, 28.8kbps, 33.6kbps</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454</id>
	<title>This is the right way to do it</title>
	<author>gweihir</author>
	<datestamp>1269711960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And even in the metrically challenged USA, SI happens to be the law. Imperial units are only allowed in addition, but prefixes must be SI. If you don;t believe me, look up your own laws before shooting off your mouths.</p><p>The rule actually is that anything measured must use SI prefixes and units (in the US and some other backward countries some historic units may be allowable besides SI units, but prefixes are the law even there) when sold, i.e. the HDD manufacturers are prohibited by local and international law from using base 2 units as the only or main size statement. If they do, that would be fraudulent. The only thing that would save them is that it is permissible to give the customer more than stated.</p><p>So how do RAM sizes come into this? Simple: A RAM size is not a measurement. It is membership in a size class. While a HDD can have an arbitrary size (well, modulo 512, but that is a detail with todays sizes), RAM cannot have other sizes than powers of 2 and hence a statement like 1MB  for RAM is a statement of membership in a specific size class and not a measurement. (Incidentially, 1mb is 1 mili-bit, i.e. 1/1000 of a bit. Get this right or be regarded as a moron!)</p><p>I do not understand why so many people cling to a mistake. Grow up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And even in the metrically challenged USA , SI happens to be the law .
Imperial units are only allowed in addition , but prefixes must be SI .
If you don ; t believe me , look up your own laws before shooting off your mouths.The rule actually is that anything measured must use SI prefixes and units ( in the US and some other backward countries some historic units may be allowable besides SI units , but prefixes are the law even there ) when sold , i.e .
the HDD manufacturers are prohibited by local and international law from using base 2 units as the only or main size statement .
If they do , that would be fraudulent .
The only thing that would save them is that it is permissible to give the customer more than stated.So how do RAM sizes come into this ?
Simple : A RAM size is not a measurement .
It is membership in a size class .
While a HDD can have an arbitrary size ( well , modulo 512 , but that is a detail with todays sizes ) , RAM can not have other sizes than powers of 2 and hence a statement like 1MB for RAM is a statement of membership in a specific size class and not a measurement .
( Incidentially , 1mb is 1 mili-bit , i.e .
1/1000 of a bit .
Get this right or be regarded as a moron !
) I do not understand why so many people cling to a mistake .
Grow up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And even in the metrically challenged USA, SI happens to be the law.
Imperial units are only allowed in addition, but prefixes must be SI.
If you don;t believe me, look up your own laws before shooting off your mouths.The rule actually is that anything measured must use SI prefixes and units (in the US and some other backward countries some historic units may be allowable besides SI units, but prefixes are the law even there) when sold, i.e.
the HDD manufacturers are prohibited by local and international law from using base 2 units as the only or main size statement.
If they do, that would be fraudulent.
The only thing that would save them is that it is permissible to give the customer more than stated.So how do RAM sizes come into this?
Simple: A RAM size is not a measurement.
It is membership in a size class.
While a HDD can have an arbitrary size (well, modulo 512, but that is a detail with todays sizes), RAM cannot have other sizes than powers of 2 and hence a statement like 1MB  for RAM is a statement of membership in a specific size class and not a measurement.
(Incidentially, 1mb is 1 mili-bit, i.e.
1/1000 of a bit.
Get this right or be regarded as a moron!
)I do not understand why so many people cling to a mistake.
Grow up!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643176</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269688980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The most annoying? That nobody has hacked Snow Leopard to restore real units."</p><p><a href="http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=777991" title="macrumors.com" rel="nofollow">http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=777991</a> [macrumors.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The most annoying ?
That nobody has hacked Snow Leopard to restore real units .
" http : //forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php ? t = 777991 [ macrumors.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The most annoying?
That nobody has hacked Snow Leopard to restore real units.
"http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=777991 [macrumors.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646244</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269775440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kinda like: m isn't a prefix, it's a fundamental unit: metre.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kinda like : m is n't a prefix , it 's a fundamental unit : metre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kinda like: m isn't a prefix, it's a fundamental unit: metre.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642600</id>
	<title>Re:ubuntu joins apple...</title>
	<author>maestroX</author>
	<datestamp>1269684300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem is that the kilo, mega, giga etc. are <b>base-10 orders</b> of magnitude that were used incorrectly for <b>base-2</b> numbers in computers. It should never have been 1 kilobyte means 1024 bytes. This is just the move to fix a long <b>standing</b> problem.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
By coincidence you reveal the true flaw in human perception.
<br>
Decipedals, decicycles, decinoculars, decisexual?
<br>
Surely you jest.
<br>
Join the petition for accepting the number 2 as a prime now!
<br>
If the 10-base system is allowed to proceed, coreutils will be shifted to bloatware!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that the kilo , mega , giga etc .
are base-10 orders of magnitude that were used incorrectly for base-2 numbers in computers .
It should never have been 1 kilobyte means 1024 bytes .
This is just the move to fix a long standing problem .
By coincidence you reveal the true flaw in human perception .
Decipedals , decicycles , decinoculars , decisexual ?
Surely you jest .
Join the petition for accepting the number 2 as a prime now !
If the 10-base system is allowed to proceed , coreutils will be shifted to bloatware !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that the kilo, mega, giga etc.
are base-10 orders of magnitude that were used incorrectly for base-2 numbers in computers.
It should never have been 1 kilobyte means 1024 bytes.
This is just the move to fix a long standing problem.
By coincidence you reveal the true flaw in human perception.
Decipedals, decicycles, decinoculars, decisexual?
Surely you jest.
Join the petition for accepting the number 2 as a prime now!
If the 10-base system is allowed to proceed, coreutils will be shifted to bloatware!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640540</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269712320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before, the situation was simple.</p><p>Everything not binary-represented-information related used base-10.</p><p>Everything binary-represented-information related (computing related, bandwidth related etc) used base 2, because the<br>most important thing is how much information is being passed around or stored, and base-2 is the natural unit for<br>measuring information, which comes in bits, and whose complexity is related to powers of the number of bits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before , the situation was simple.Everything not binary-represented-information related used base-10.Everything binary-represented-information related ( computing related , bandwidth related etc ) used base 2 , because themost important thing is how much information is being passed around or stored , and base-2 is the natural unit formeasuring information , which comes in bits , and whose complexity is related to powers of the number of bits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before, the situation was simple.Everything not binary-represented-information related used base-10.Everything binary-represented-information related (computing related, bandwidth related etc) used base 2, because themost important thing is how much information is being passed around or stored, and base-2 is the natural unit formeasuring information, which comes in bits, and whose complexity is related to powers of the number of bits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640224</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>marcansoft</author>
	<datestamp>1269710700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a myth. The <i>chips</i> in SSDs use sizes that are usually based on powers of two plus an extra 1/64th (or so) of spare data for error correction (so they aren't even a power of two size - they're slightly <i>larger</i>). For example, typical SLC flash has a power of two number of blocks, each being 64 pages, each page being 2KiB data plus 64 bytes of spare area.</p><p>Actual Flash storage devices with a controller (SSDs, SD cards, whatever) will have some bad blocks, and they also reserve more blocks for error correction, wear leveling, and future bad block relocation. In the end, manufacturers tend to match it up so that the actual usable data size is close to some common SI size. For example, a 4GB SD card probably uses a 4GiB Flash chip, which actually contains something like 4429185024 bytes of Flash cells (4.125GiB). 4GiB are used as the data area, and of that a portion is reserved for bad blocks and wear leveling, so in the end what your reader sees is more like 4GB (3.73GiB).</p><p>NOR Flash, on the other hand, typically guarantees a full binary-sized array, but that isn't used for consumer bulk storage. The only consumer product that physically comes in binary-sized units is RAM. And even then you always waste some of it, due to address space mapping issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a myth .
The chips in SSDs use sizes that are usually based on powers of two plus an extra 1/64th ( or so ) of spare data for error correction ( so they are n't even a power of two size - they 're slightly larger ) .
For example , typical SLC flash has a power of two number of blocks , each being 64 pages , each page being 2KiB data plus 64 bytes of spare area.Actual Flash storage devices with a controller ( SSDs , SD cards , whatever ) will have some bad blocks , and they also reserve more blocks for error correction , wear leveling , and future bad block relocation .
In the end , manufacturers tend to match it up so that the actual usable data size is close to some common SI size .
For example , a 4GB SD card probably uses a 4GiB Flash chip , which actually contains something like 4429185024 bytes of Flash cells ( 4.125GiB ) .
4GiB are used as the data area , and of that a portion is reserved for bad blocks and wear leveling , so in the end what your reader sees is more like 4GB ( 3.73GiB ) .NOR Flash , on the other hand , typically guarantees a full binary-sized array , but that is n't used for consumer bulk storage .
The only consumer product that physically comes in binary-sized units is RAM .
And even then you always waste some of it , due to address space mapping issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a myth.
The chips in SSDs use sizes that are usually based on powers of two plus an extra 1/64th (or so) of spare data for error correction (so they aren't even a power of two size - they're slightly larger).
For example, typical SLC flash has a power of two number of blocks, each being 64 pages, each page being 2KiB data plus 64 bytes of spare area.Actual Flash storage devices with a controller (SSDs, SD cards, whatever) will have some bad blocks, and they also reserve more blocks for error correction, wear leveling, and future bad block relocation.
In the end, manufacturers tend to match it up so that the actual usable data size is close to some common SI size.
For example, a 4GB SD card probably uses a 4GiB Flash chip, which actually contains something like 4429185024 bytes of Flash cells (4.125GiB).
4GiB are used as the data area, and of that a portion is reserved for bad blocks and wear leveling, so in the end what your reader sees is more like 4GB (3.73GiB).NOR Flash, on the other hand, typically guarantees a full binary-sized array, but that isn't used for consumer bulk storage.
The only consumer product that physically comes in binary-sized units is RAM.
And even then you always waste some of it, due to address space mapping issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641956</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>sourcerror</author>
	<datestamp>1269722400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" bandwidth related etc) "</p><p>As a fellow slashdotters pointed out: networking always used it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" bandwidth related etc ) " As a fellow slashdotters pointed out : networking always used it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" bandwidth related etc) "As a fellow slashdotters pointed out: networking always used it right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641614</id>
	<title>But its WRONG!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269719580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In computers, there are critically important reasons why base2 is used (transistors act as electronic switches which have two states: on and off).  Wiring buses in computers (address lines, data lines) are base2, with the electricity being on or off.  When data is read and written on the hard disk, its done in a binary format.  When searching for data on a disk, its either a binary search, or the equivalent of a binary search (divide and conquer) algorithm used to find data, with O(log n) search time.  Please don't dumb it down.  We don't need to dumb it down.  Its not that the computer is to compl-cated, its that the user is too dumb.  Users have been suing drive manufacturers who have been lying to people like this.  I expect data to be stored this way.  Two wrongs don't make a right (it takes three lefts for that), but I digress, don't change it.  DON'T!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In computers , there are critically important reasons why base2 is used ( transistors act as electronic switches which have two states : on and off ) .
Wiring buses in computers ( address lines , data lines ) are base2 , with the electricity being on or off .
When data is read and written on the hard disk , its done in a binary format .
When searching for data on a disk , its either a binary search , or the equivalent of a binary search ( divide and conquer ) algorithm used to find data , with O ( log n ) search time .
Please do n't dumb it down .
We do n't need to dumb it down .
Its not that the computer is to compl-cated , its that the user is too dumb .
Users have been suing drive manufacturers who have been lying to people like this .
I expect data to be stored this way .
Two wrongs do n't make a right ( it takes three lefts for that ) , but I digress , do n't change it .
DO N'T !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In computers, there are critically important reasons why base2 is used (transistors act as electronic switches which have two states: on and off).
Wiring buses in computers (address lines, data lines) are base2, with the electricity being on or off.
When data is read and written on the hard disk, its done in a binary format.
When searching for data on a disk, its either a binary search, or the equivalent of a binary search (divide and conquer) algorithm used to find data, with O(log n) search time.
Please don't dumb it down.
We don't need to dumb it down.
Its not that the computer is to compl-cated, its that the user is too dumb.
Users have been suing drive manufacturers who have been lying to people like this.
I expect data to be stored this way.
Two wrongs don't make a right (it takes three lefts for that), but I digress, don't change it.
DON'T!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642460</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269683160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Base-2 sucks for human calculation. Which file is bigger:</p><p>A.txt - 1.4MiB<br>B.txt - 1434kiB</p><p>C.txt - 3.7MiB<br>D.txt - 3788kiB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Base-2 sucks for human calculation .
Which file is bigger : A.txt - 1.4MiBB.txt - 1434kiBC.txt - 3.7MiBD.txt - 3788kiB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Base-2 sucks for human calculation.
Which file is bigger:A.txt - 1.4MiBB.txt - 1434kiBC.txt - 3.7MiBD.txt - 3788kiB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642724</id>
	<title>...and 1 byte as 10 bits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269685080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and 1 byte as 10 bits</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and 1 byte as 10 bits</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and 1 byte as 10 bits</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640550</id>
	<title>Another triumph of marketing over engineering :-(</title>
	<author>Indigo</author>
	<datestamp>1269712320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some unknown Slashdotter said it best... when this issue comes up, it always gets resolved in the way that makes the numbers come out bigger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some unknown Slashdotter said it best... when this issue comes up , it always gets resolved in the way that makes the numbers come out bigger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some unknown Slashdotter said it best... when this issue comes up, it always gets resolved in the way that makes the numbers come out bigger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640630</id>
	<title>Of course.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269712740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For version 10.10 everything should be in base 10.  I expect they'll switch to base 11 for Ubuntu 11.11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For version 10.10 everything should be in base 10 .
I expect they 'll switch to base 11 for Ubuntu 11.11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For version 10.10 everything should be in base 10.
I expect they'll switch to base 11 for Ubuntu 11.11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642710</id>
	<title>Re:Why not change the human base instead?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1269684960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While a noble objective, it'll fail the same reason any attempt to artificially improve human language, no matter how noble, is extremely difficult to carry out. Backward compatibility, the current system having a large number of existing users, people using the new system won't be understood by those on the old one, etc. I'd switch to hex (more natural than oct IMO, 2 hex digits are 1 byte) but most people wouldn't bother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While a noble objective , it 'll fail the same reason any attempt to artificially improve human language , no matter how noble , is extremely difficult to carry out .
Backward compatibility , the current system having a large number of existing users , people using the new system wo n't be understood by those on the old one , etc .
I 'd switch to hex ( more natural than oct IMO , 2 hex digits are 1 byte ) but most people would n't bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While a noble objective, it'll fail the same reason any attempt to artificially improve human language, no matter how noble, is extremely difficult to carry out.
Backward compatibility, the current system having a large number of existing users, people using the new system won't be understood by those on the old one, etc.
I'd switch to hex (more natural than oct IMO, 2 hex digits are 1 byte) but most people wouldn't bother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31695682</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270041600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Imperial units are only allowed in addition, but prefixes must be SI. If you don;t believe me, look up your own laws before shooting off your mouths.</p><p>Thankfully, the law is better than your punctuation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Imperial units are only allowed in addition , but prefixes must be SI .
If you don ; t believe me , look up your own laws before shooting off your mouths.Thankfully , the law is better than your punctuation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Imperial units are only allowed in addition, but prefixes must be SI.
If you don;t believe me, look up your own laws before shooting off your mouths.Thankfully, the law is better than your punctuation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640092</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269709980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My thought exactly.  Base-10 has no place with computers because nothing with computers is calculated/measured in base-10.  The fact that the "SI purists" got upset that the SI-prefixes were "misused" in computer sciences and suggested be use a different prefix (e.g., kibibyte vs. kilobyte) is merely just that: anal retentivism.<br>Since there is no reason to represent computer quantities in base-10 (only in base-2), and we have well established prefixes to denote magnitudes of amounts, why is it SO WRONG to use the prefixes in the context of computers to have 1kB be 1024 bytes?  It makes perfect sense to me...  It's called CONTEXT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My thought exactly .
Base-10 has no place with computers because nothing with computers is calculated/measured in base-10 .
The fact that the " SI purists " got upset that the SI-prefixes were " misused " in computer sciences and suggested be use a different prefix ( e.g. , kibibyte vs. kilobyte ) is merely just that : anal retentivism.Since there is no reason to represent computer quantities in base-10 ( only in base-2 ) , and we have well established prefixes to denote magnitudes of amounts , why is it SO WRONG to use the prefixes in the context of computers to have 1kB be 1024 bytes ?
It makes perfect sense to me... It 's called CONTEXT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My thought exactly.
Base-10 has no place with computers because nothing with computers is calculated/measured in base-10.
The fact that the "SI purists" got upset that the SI-prefixes were "misused" in computer sciences and suggested be use a different prefix (e.g., kibibyte vs. kilobyte) is merely just that: anal retentivism.Since there is no reason to represent computer quantities in base-10 (only in base-2), and we have well established prefixes to denote magnitudes of amounts, why is it SO WRONG to use the prefixes in the context of computers to have 1kB be 1024 bytes?
It makes perfect sense to me...  It's called CONTEXT!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641014</id>
	<title>SI is for REAL world measurements.</title>
	<author>TheBuzzSaw</author>
	<datestamp>1269715440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a software engineer, I strongly oppose this move, and I oppose the advent the silly standard of prefixes "gibi" "mebi" etc.

There is no alignment between the digital world and the physical world. It is not hard to clarify to people that when dealing in binary, a kilo is 1024. Non-computer scientists need to shut their mouths regarding this issue because they will never make any kind of mathematical connection between kilograms and kilobytes. They have absolutely no relationship unless performing some bizarre calculation on the weight of hard drives.

The choice to make a kilobyte 1024 bytes had nothing to do with making us unique, attacking SI, or confusing people. It is just a fact: 1000 has no real meaning in the world of binary. 1000 is an incredibly arbitrary and useless measurement. However, shift to 1024, and now we're in business! We can make effective calculations regarding blocks of memory because they line up ever so nicely.

Again, it is a very clean/distinguishable line: 1000 in the physical world, 1024 in the digital world. Frankly, I will never use the new prefixes. No one recognizes them, and the other prefixes make perfect sense. Basically, either people will get it or they won't. If they get it, then they know WHY it is 1024 and not 1000. If they don't get it, it is irrelevant to them, and they just want the device to work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a software engineer , I strongly oppose this move , and I oppose the advent the silly standard of prefixes " gibi " " mebi " etc .
There is no alignment between the digital world and the physical world .
It is not hard to clarify to people that when dealing in binary , a kilo is 1024 .
Non-computer scientists need to shut their mouths regarding this issue because they will never make any kind of mathematical connection between kilograms and kilobytes .
They have absolutely no relationship unless performing some bizarre calculation on the weight of hard drives .
The choice to make a kilobyte 1024 bytes had nothing to do with making us unique , attacking SI , or confusing people .
It is just a fact : 1000 has no real meaning in the world of binary .
1000 is an incredibly arbitrary and useless measurement .
However , shift to 1024 , and now we 're in business !
We can make effective calculations regarding blocks of memory because they line up ever so nicely .
Again , it is a very clean/distinguishable line : 1000 in the physical world , 1024 in the digital world .
Frankly , I will never use the new prefixes .
No one recognizes them , and the other prefixes make perfect sense .
Basically , either people will get it or they wo n't .
If they get it , then they know WHY it is 1024 and not 1000 .
If they do n't get it , it is irrelevant to them , and they just want the device to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a software engineer, I strongly oppose this move, and I oppose the advent the silly standard of prefixes "gibi" "mebi" etc.
There is no alignment between the digital world and the physical world.
It is not hard to clarify to people that when dealing in binary, a kilo is 1024.
Non-computer scientists need to shut their mouths regarding this issue because they will never make any kind of mathematical connection between kilograms and kilobytes.
They have absolutely no relationship unless performing some bizarre calculation on the weight of hard drives.
The choice to make a kilobyte 1024 bytes had nothing to do with making us unique, attacking SI, or confusing people.
It is just a fact: 1000 has no real meaning in the world of binary.
1000 is an incredibly arbitrary and useless measurement.
However, shift to 1024, and now we're in business!
We can make effective calculations regarding blocks of memory because they line up ever so nicely.
Again, it is a very clean/distinguishable line: 1000 in the physical world, 1024 in the digital world.
Frankly, I will never use the new prefixes.
No one recognizes them, and the other prefixes make perfect sense.
Basically, either people will get it or they won't.
If they get it, then they know WHY it is 1024 and not 1000.
If they don't get it, it is irrelevant to them, and they just want the device to work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640722</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Schraegstrichpunkt</author>
	<datestamp>1269713460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for 20+ years and I do \_not\_ want to change</p></div><p>People like you are best ignored.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been ... for 20 + years and I do \ _not \ _ want to changePeople like you are best ignored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been ... for 20+ years and I do \_not\_ want to changePeople like you are best ignored.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640010</id>
	<title>Re:ubuntu joins apple...</title>
	<author>bigtomrodney</author>
	<datestamp>1269709380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you've misunderstood the issue. The problem is that the kilo, mega, giga etc. are base-10 orders of magnitude that were used incorrectly for base-2 numbers in computers. It should never have been 1 kilobyte means 1024 bytes. This is just the move to fix a long standing problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 've misunderstood the issue .
The problem is that the kilo , mega , giga etc .
are base-10 orders of magnitude that were used incorrectly for base-2 numbers in computers .
It should never have been 1 kilobyte means 1024 bytes .
This is just the move to fix a long standing problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you've misunderstood the issue.
The problem is that the kilo, mega, giga etc.
are base-10 orders of magnitude that were used incorrectly for base-2 numbers in computers.
It should never have been 1 kilobyte means 1024 bytes.
This is just the move to fix a long standing problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641862</id>
	<title>The big reason I reject this change is simply ...</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1269721680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... that it was not done by means of a purely computer science based terminology and nomenclature basis.  Instead, it was done by government bureaucrats who were afraid of things being done different than they had envisioned, and didn't understand why.  I do agree that some kind of distinction is needed between a prefix system that means powers of 1000 and a prefix system that means powers of 1024.  But what we got from IEC was not done properly or fairly.  First of all, the prefix designations for each should be of equal size.  That any inserted letters in one should mean an inserted letter in another.  Secondly, there should be some consistency, such as using the same letter case between them.  The letter "i" really make no sense, either.  What the hell does "i" mean?  Internal?</p><p>The IEC is about the bureaucrats of trade industrials.  They have their own motivations that might work for them.  But this isn't computer science.  Maybe if this had been done through a process like the IETF does RFCs for the internet, we might have a better result.  I suggest we scrap the mess and start over, this time doing it right with all the proper constraints and requirements.  And make it an open process (IEC and ISO are most certainly not open processes).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that it was not done by means of a purely computer science based terminology and nomenclature basis .
Instead , it was done by government bureaucrats who were afraid of things being done different than they had envisioned , and did n't understand why .
I do agree that some kind of distinction is needed between a prefix system that means powers of 1000 and a prefix system that means powers of 1024 .
But what we got from IEC was not done properly or fairly .
First of all , the prefix designations for each should be of equal size .
That any inserted letters in one should mean an inserted letter in another .
Secondly , there should be some consistency , such as using the same letter case between them .
The letter " i " really make no sense , either .
What the hell does " i " mean ?
Internal ? The IEC is about the bureaucrats of trade industrials .
They have their own motivations that might work for them .
But this is n't computer science .
Maybe if this had been done through a process like the IETF does RFCs for the internet , we might have a better result .
I suggest we scrap the mess and start over , this time doing it right with all the proper constraints and requirements .
And make it an open process ( IEC and ISO are most certainly not open processes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that it was not done by means of a purely computer science based terminology and nomenclature basis.
Instead, it was done by government bureaucrats who were afraid of things being done different than they had envisioned, and didn't understand why.
I do agree that some kind of distinction is needed between a prefix system that means powers of 1000 and a prefix system that means powers of 1024.
But what we got from IEC was not done properly or fairly.
First of all, the prefix designations for each should be of equal size.
That any inserted letters in one should mean an inserted letter in another.
Secondly, there should be some consistency, such as using the same letter case between them.
The letter "i" really make no sense, either.
What the hell does "i" mean?
Internal?The IEC is about the bureaucrats of trade industrials.
They have their own motivations that might work for them.
But this isn't computer science.
Maybe if this had been done through a process like the IETF does RFCs for the internet, we might have a better result.
I suggest we scrap the mess and start over, this time doing it right with all the proper constraints and requirements.
And make it an open process (IEC and ISO are most certainly not open processes).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641808</id>
	<title>A better number system</title>
	<author>Twinbee</author>
	<datestamp>1269721140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To all the people moaning at this change, then I say, rather than change the long-standing SI prefixes to match what you want, instead change the number system itself to match your preferences. Yes, campaign for base 16 (or even base 12, I like both in different ways). It'll take society a long time, but at least you're attacking the root of the problem.</p><p>And anyway, I think it would be a nice idea to represent storage in exponential growth form. Either 2^1, 2^2,... 2^20 etc. or powers of 10 instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To all the people moaning at this change , then I say , rather than change the long-standing SI prefixes to match what you want , instead change the number system itself to match your preferences .
Yes , campaign for base 16 ( or even base 12 , I like both in different ways ) .
It 'll take society a long time , but at least you 're attacking the root of the problem.And anyway , I think it would be a nice idea to represent storage in exponential growth form .
Either 2 ^ 1 , 2 ^ 2,... 2 ^ 20 etc .
or powers of 10 instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To all the people moaning at this change, then I say, rather than change the long-standing SI prefixes to match what you want, instead change the number system itself to match your preferences.
Yes, campaign for base 16 (or even base 12, I like both in different ways).
It'll take society a long time, but at least you're attacking the root of the problem.And anyway, I think it would be a nice idea to represent storage in exponential growth form.
Either 2^1, 2^2,... 2^20 etc.
or powers of 10 instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828</id>
	<title>And I thought geeks were supposed to be FLEXIBLE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269714060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many computer nerds like to tout themselves as geniuses who have flexible minds.  But the truth is that we're all afraid of change.  And this switch from KiB to KB is change.  It's not what you're used to, so it's going to confuse you.</p><p>But as a geek myself with an obsession for clear and precise terminology, I welcome the change.  No longer will I wonder if someone's talking about KB vs. KiB, because it'll be consistent and explicit, at least on the computer systems developed by flexible-enough-minded people who are both willing to change and willing to correct a long-confusing problem.</p><p>It's true that the HD makers have taken advantage of this confusion.  Back in the day when people almost always said KB when they meant KiB, HD makers used KB.  But the fact is, once we adapt our terminology to be less ambiguous, we really can't be mislead by them anymore, and their deceptive marketing practices will be moot (at least when it comes to bytes of storage).</p><p>So, to summarize, stop being a stick in the mud and learn to adapt to change.  Computers are and always have been an aspect of change in our society.  Get over it and get with the program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many computer nerds like to tout themselves as geniuses who have flexible minds .
But the truth is that we 're all afraid of change .
And this switch from KiB to KB is change .
It 's not what you 're used to , so it 's going to confuse you.But as a geek myself with an obsession for clear and precise terminology , I welcome the change .
No longer will I wonder if someone 's talking about KB vs. KiB , because it 'll be consistent and explicit , at least on the computer systems developed by flexible-enough-minded people who are both willing to change and willing to correct a long-confusing problem.It 's true that the HD makers have taken advantage of this confusion .
Back in the day when people almost always said KB when they meant KiB , HD makers used KB .
But the fact is , once we adapt our terminology to be less ambiguous , we really ca n't be mislead by them anymore , and their deceptive marketing practices will be moot ( at least when it comes to bytes of storage ) .So , to summarize , stop being a stick in the mud and learn to adapt to change .
Computers are and always have been an aspect of change in our society .
Get over it and get with the program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many computer nerds like to tout themselves as geniuses who have flexible minds.
But the truth is that we're all afraid of change.
And this switch from KiB to KB is change.
It's not what you're used to, so it's going to confuse you.But as a geek myself with an obsession for clear and precise terminology, I welcome the change.
No longer will I wonder if someone's talking about KB vs. KiB, because it'll be consistent and explicit, at least on the computer systems developed by flexible-enough-minded people who are both willing to change and willing to correct a long-confusing problem.It's true that the HD makers have taken advantage of this confusion.
Back in the day when people almost always said KB when they meant KiB, HD makers used KB.
But the fact is, once we adapt our terminology to be less ambiguous, we really can't be mislead by them anymore, and their deceptive marketing practices will be moot (at least when it comes to bytes of storage).So, to summarize, stop being a stick in the mud and learn to adapt to change.
Computers are and always have been an aspect of change in our society.
Get over it and get with the program.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640746</id>
	<title>Proposal: Use abbreviations only</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1269713700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Computer people can use</p><p>KB = 2^10 Bytes   (1 Byte = 2^3 bits)<br>Kb = 2^10 bits<br>MB = 2^20 Bytes<br>Mb = 2^20 bits<br>GB = 2^30 Bytes<br>Gb  = 2^30 bits</p><p>Never call them Giga, Mega etc. if that will p.o. the Si people</p><p>We like abbreviations anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Computer people can useKB = 2 ^ 10 Bytes ( 1 Byte = 2 ^ 3 bits ) Kb = 2 ^ 10 bitsMB = 2 ^ 20 BytesMb = 2 ^ 20 bitsGB = 2 ^ 30 BytesGb = 2 ^ 30 bitsNever call them Giga , Mega etc .
if that will p.o .
the Si peopleWe like abbreviations anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computer people can useKB = 2^10 Bytes   (1 Byte = 2^3 bits)Kb = 2^10 bitsMB = 2^20 BytesMb = 2^20 bitsGB = 2^30 BytesGb  = 2^30 bitsNever call them Giga, Mega etc.
if that will p.o.
the Si peopleWe like abbreviations anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642574</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>PhunkySchtuff</author>
	<datestamp>1269684180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I work mostly on OS X and this so-called feature annoys me to no end. I do not know the size of my files anymore, I have to go to the terminal just to know the size of a file</p></div><p>Mate, seriously, when does it matter if that word document is 156kB or 156kiB? Or that jpeg is 290,149 bytes rather than 283,357? I know that whenever I've been checking the size of files, I've been rounding them off in my head for years anyway...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work mostly on OS X and this so-called feature annoys me to no end .
I do not know the size of my files anymore , I have to go to the terminal just to know the size of a fileMate , seriously , when does it matter if that word document is 156kB or 156kiB ?
Or that jpeg is 290,149 bytes rather than 283,357 ?
I know that whenever I 've been checking the size of files , I 've been rounding them off in my head for years anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work mostly on OS X and this so-called feature annoys me to no end.
I do not know the size of my files anymore, I have to go to the terminal just to know the size of a fileMate, seriously, when does it matter if that word document is 156kB or 156kiB?
Or that jpeg is 290,149 bytes rather than 283,357?
I know that whenever I've been checking the size of files, I've been rounding them off in my head for years anyway...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31650346</id>
	<title>Re:This is the right way to do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269771120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     Size class?  What the hell is wrong with you.   A 512MB memory module is not a "size class", it is 512MB.   If it were a 'size class" then I'm sure unscrupulous companies would start making like 450, 500MB chips and claim it's "512MB class".  1MB is 1024KB, and a KB is 1024 bytes.   Computers don't use metric they use binary.   I don't want my 512MB sticks listed as 536.8MB (since it is 536870912 bytes).  Disk sectors are 512 or 4096 bytes, making proper KB the natural unit, not 1000 byte KBs.   Transfer via modem or serial used to be more "metric" because there would be 8 data bits, one start bit, one stop bit, not because of some desire to follow SI standards.   10mbps and 100mbps ethernet do use standard megabits; gigabit ethernet on up  use the metric gigabits because they were having trouble getting those last few mbps to make it follow powers of two.</p><p>"And even in the metrically challenged USA, SI happens to be the law. Imperial units are only allowed in addition, but prefixes must be SI. If you don;t believe me, look up your own laws before shooting off your mouths."<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; As far as I know this was repealed; if not it's not followed in practice.  I've never seen a single sign that lists distance in km or speed limit in kph for instance.  But this really is irrelevant.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I just hope there is an option in 10.10 to re-enable proper unit usage.  To be honest I don't give a toss if that mens showing "KiB" instead of "KB" afterwards, but I don't want my system showing metric kilobytes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Size class ?
What the hell is wrong with you .
A 512MB memory module is not a " size class " , it is 512MB .
If it were a 'size class " then I 'm sure unscrupulous companies would start making like 450 , 500MB chips and claim it 's " 512MB class " .
1MB is 1024KB , and a KB is 1024 bytes .
Computers do n't use metric they use binary .
I do n't want my 512MB sticks listed as 536.8MB ( since it is 536870912 bytes ) .
Disk sectors are 512 or 4096 bytes , making proper KB the natural unit , not 1000 byte KBs .
Transfer via modem or serial used to be more " metric " because there would be 8 data bits , one start bit , one stop bit , not because of some desire to follow SI standards .
10mbps and 100mbps ethernet do use standard megabits ; gigabit ethernet on up use the metric gigabits because they were having trouble getting those last few mbps to make it follow powers of two .
" And even in the metrically challenged USA , SI happens to be the law .
Imperial units are only allowed in addition , but prefixes must be SI .
If you don ; t believe me , look up your own laws before shooting off your mouths .
"           As far as I know this was repealed ; if not it 's not followed in practice .
I 've never seen a single sign that lists distance in km or speed limit in kph for instance .
But this really is irrelevant .
          I just hope there is an option in 10.10 to re-enable proper unit usage .
To be honest I do n't give a toss if that mens showing " KiB " instead of " KB " afterwards , but I do n't want my system showing metric kilobytes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     Size class?
What the hell is wrong with you.
A 512MB memory module is not a "size class", it is 512MB.
If it were a 'size class" then I'm sure unscrupulous companies would start making like 450, 500MB chips and claim it's "512MB class".
1MB is 1024KB, and a KB is 1024 bytes.
Computers don't use metric they use binary.
I don't want my 512MB sticks listed as 536.8MB (since it is 536870912 bytes).
Disk sectors are 512 or 4096 bytes, making proper KB the natural unit, not 1000 byte KBs.
Transfer via modem or serial used to be more "metric" because there would be 8 data bits, one start bit, one stop bit, not because of some desire to follow SI standards.
10mbps and 100mbps ethernet do use standard megabits; gigabit ethernet on up  use the metric gigabits because they were having trouble getting those last few mbps to make it follow powers of two.
"And even in the metrically challenged USA, SI happens to be the law.
Imperial units are only allowed in addition, but prefixes must be SI.
If you don;t believe me, look up your own laws before shooting off your mouths.
"
          As far as I know this was repealed; if not it's not followed in practice.
I've never seen a single sign that lists distance in km or speed limit in kph for instance.
But this really is irrelevant.
          I just hope there is an option in 10.10 to re-enable proper unit usage.
To be honest I don't give a toss if that mens showing "KiB" instead of "KB" afterwards, but I don't want my system showing metric kilobytes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641100</id>
	<title>Re:Bye Ubuntu, was nice knowing you.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269715980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you seriously upset by this? This move will make the UNITS correct, WHATEVER they are.  They aren't forcing any application to use KiB or kB, but if they are using KiB, darnnit, the app better show that it's using KiB, not kB.  The number will be the same, so an idiot user who doesn't know from kB vs. KiB can go on about his ignorant usage.  But the unit will be correct.  The current system is like saying "meters are like yards, so we'll just use yards but call them meters," while some people actually DO use meters, but there's no way to distinguish the two because everybody uses the "m" as a suffix.</p><p>Ubuntu, and some others, are saying "if you use meters, use the m; if you use yards, say so!"</p><p>This kind of change could usher in an option in your software so that YOU can pick which units you prefer, since software will be forced to be more careful about what it displays.  But hey, if Ubuntu loses you, an emotionally charged reactionary as a user... well, no, I'm sorry.  I don't want Ubuntu to lose any users over rational changes.  Think about it some more and see if you are still pissed off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you seriously upset by this ?
This move will make the UNITS correct , WHATEVER they are .
They are n't forcing any application to use KiB or kB , but if they are using KiB , darnnit , the app better show that it 's using KiB , not kB .
The number will be the same , so an idiot user who does n't know from kB vs. KiB can go on about his ignorant usage .
But the unit will be correct .
The current system is like saying " meters are like yards , so we 'll just use yards but call them meters , " while some people actually DO use meters , but there 's no way to distinguish the two because everybody uses the " m " as a suffix.Ubuntu , and some others , are saying " if you use meters , use the m ; if you use yards , say so !
" This kind of change could usher in an option in your software so that YOU can pick which units you prefer , since software will be forced to be more careful about what it displays .
But hey , if Ubuntu loses you , an emotionally charged reactionary as a user... well , no , I 'm sorry .
I do n't want Ubuntu to lose any users over rational changes .
Think about it some more and see if you are still pissed off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you seriously upset by this?
This move will make the UNITS correct, WHATEVER they are.
They aren't forcing any application to use KiB or kB, but if they are using KiB, darnnit, the app better show that it's using KiB, not kB.
The number will be the same, so an idiot user who doesn't know from kB vs. KiB can go on about his ignorant usage.
But the unit will be correct.
The current system is like saying "meters are like yards, so we'll just use yards but call them meters," while some people actually DO use meters, but there's no way to distinguish the two because everybody uses the "m" as a suffix.Ubuntu, and some others, are saying "if you use meters, use the m; if you use yards, say so!
"This kind of change could usher in an option in your software so that YOU can pick which units you prefer, since software will be forced to be more careful about what it displays.
But hey, if Ubuntu loses you, an emotionally charged reactionary as a user... well, no, I'm sorry.
I don't want Ubuntu to lose any users over rational changes.
Think about it some more and see if you are still pissed off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643620</id>
	<title>Ubuntu should stop screwing around</title>
	<author>Murdoch5</author>
	<datestamp>1269693960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If your going to make a Megabyte 1000 Kilobytes then lets make a Byte 10 bits.  Stop screwing with sizes that makes sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your going to make a Megabyte 1000 Kilobytes then lets make a Byte 10 bits .
Stop screwing with sizes that makes sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your going to make a Megabyte 1000 Kilobytes then lets make a Byte 10 bits.
Stop screwing with sizes that makes sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644004</id>
	<title>Re:And I thought geeks were supposed to be FLEXIBL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269698220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The simple fact is, that all computers nowadays are base 2. So for the numbers to be useful, they must also be base two. Half your ram, hard disk, cache, display resolution, data rate, etc, will always be a nice round number in base 2, 8 or 16, and a very hard to remember number in base 10.</p></div></blockquote><p>
This is nonsense. Sizes of files and free space are almost never nice round numbers in either base 2 or base 10. I don't know anybody who has a problem comparing quantities of ANYTHING when using decimal.
</p><p>
Most of the time when we talk about disk space and memory space, we use decimal representations anyway. The 1024-based quantities are really only useful for programmers who are dealing with addresses, and even then they usually use hex.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The simple fact is , that all computers nowadays are base 2 .
So for the numbers to be useful , they must also be base two .
Half your ram , hard disk , cache , display resolution , data rate , etc , will always be a nice round number in base 2 , 8 or 16 , and a very hard to remember number in base 10 .
This is nonsense .
Sizes of files and free space are almost never nice round numbers in either base 2 or base 10 .
I do n't know anybody who has a problem comparing quantities of ANYTHING when using decimal .
Most of the time when we talk about disk space and memory space , we use decimal representations anyway .
The 1024-based quantities are really only useful for programmers who are dealing with addresses , and even then they usually use hex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simple fact is, that all computers nowadays are base 2.
So for the numbers to be useful, they must also be base two.
Half your ram, hard disk, cache, display resolution, data rate, etc, will always be a nice round number in base 2, 8 or 16, and a very hard to remember number in base 10.
This is nonsense.
Sizes of files and free space are almost never nice round numbers in either base 2 or base 10.
I don't know anybody who has a problem comparing quantities of ANYTHING when using decimal.
Most of the time when we talk about disk space and memory space, we use decimal representations anyway.
The 1024-based quantities are really only useful for programmers who are dealing with addresses, and even then they usually use hex.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640412</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269711660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and get off my lawn!!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and get off my lawn ! ! !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and get off my lawn!!!
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642320</id>
	<title>Re:Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>prockcore</author>
	<datestamp>1269681840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well--except that pesky material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1' state or a '0' state. Most people call that a 'bit'.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's not actually how magnetic media stores information.  Instead they store it as a string of state changes.  ++--+++  where 0 is stored as "no change" and 1 is stored as "polarity change".   So that might actually be 010100.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well--except that pesky material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1 ' state or a '0 ' state .
Most people call that a 'bit'.That 's not actually how magnetic media stores information .
Instead they store it as a string of state changes .
+ + -- + + + where 0 is stored as " no change " and 1 is stored as " polarity change " .
So that might actually be 010100 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well--except that pesky material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1' state or a '0' state.
Most people call that a 'bit'.That's not actually how magnetic media stores information.
Instead they store it as a string of state changes.
++--+++  where 0 is stored as "no change" and 1 is stored as "polarity change".
So that might actually be 010100.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643190</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>WeatherGod</author>
	<datestamp>1269689040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, Ubuntu is planning to just make sure that the proper prefixes are used.  So, KiB == 1024 bytes, KB == 1000 bytes.  I would imagine that Ubuntu would display the base 10 units by default and could easily be changed to base 2 units if desired.  So, this plan is actually better than what Apple did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Ubuntu is planning to just make sure that the proper prefixes are used .
So , KiB = = 1024 bytes , KB = = 1000 bytes .
I would imagine that Ubuntu would display the base 10 units by default and could easily be changed to base 2 units if desired .
So , this plan is actually better than what Apple did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Ubuntu is planning to just make sure that the proper prefixes are used.
So, KiB == 1024 bytes, KB == 1000 bytes.
I would imagine that Ubuntu would display the base 10 units by default and could easily be changed to base 2 units if desired.
So, this plan is actually better than what Apple did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641896</id>
	<title>Finally!!!! Metric bytes</title>
	<author>jolyonr</author>
	<datestamp>1269722040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally they've seen sense and will switch to the metric ten-bit byte.</p><p>I'm fed up of this short-changing every time I use a byte! I'm sure the memory companies will harp on about how it will increase costs by 25\% but they've had an easy life for years.</p><p>If God had meant us to program with 8 bits per byte, he'd have given us 8 fingers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally they 've seen sense and will switch to the metric ten-bit byte.I 'm fed up of this short-changing every time I use a byte !
I 'm sure the memory companies will harp on about how it will increase costs by 25 \ % but they 've had an easy life for years.If God had meant us to program with 8 bits per byte , he 'd have given us 8 fingers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally they've seen sense and will switch to the metric ten-bit byte.I'm fed up of this short-changing every time I use a byte!
I'm sure the memory companies will harp on about how it will increase costs by 25\% but they've had an easy life for years.If God had meant us to program with 8 bits per byte, he'd have given us 8 fingers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641206</id>
	<title>MO? GO?</title>
	<author>trapnest</author>
	<datestamp>1269716640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't some European country measure data in octets? I know I've seen "1TO" drives for sale at sam's club. Why don't we measure data like that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't some European country measure data in octets ?
I know I 've seen " 1TO " drives for sale at sam 's club .
Why do n't we measure data like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't some European country measure data in octets?
I know I've seen "1TO" drives for sale at sam's club.
Why don't we measure data like that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640980</id>
	<title>It seems perfectly reasonable to me</title>
	<author>stonewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1269715260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Among the classes I teach in a junior college is something called "Intro to personal computing". A question that comes up all the time goes something like, "I bought a new hard drive and the PC says it is smaller than the  what the box says". Do to the crappy job our modern US educational system does most of these students have never *heard* of the concept of a number base and have no concept of how positional numbers actually work. So, to answer the question I first have to explain how numbers work, and then explain that computer people have used a coincidence the happens to make 2^10 be close enough to 10^3 as an excuse to misuse the standard prefixes and given them a new definition. The usually response is that nerds are stupid...</p><p>In the US at least our schools have decided not to teach the basic mathematical concepts that are needed to understand the difference between a "mebi" and a "mega". We might as well just stop using binary based units everywhere.</p><p>I'm not sure when the schools in the US stopped teaching arithmetic. When I was teaching in the 1970s I used to assign students to write a program that would read a number base and a number in that base. The program should then read another number base and print the number in that base. (for simplicity I restricted the possible bases to the range 1 to 36 so you could use the digits and the English letters as digits.) This is a trivial assignment that I usually used to introduce recursion and the simplest level of IO. When I gave the same assignment in the early 2000s I got room full of blank looks. One brave student asked what class they were supposed to have taken to learn what a number base was. I learned all this in 4th grade. After asking the class I realized that not one person in the room, including several college graduates, have ever encountered the terms.</p><p>Ok, I'll stop ranting now.</p><p>Stonewolf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Among the classes I teach in a junior college is something called " Intro to personal computing " .
A question that comes up all the time goes something like , " I bought a new hard drive and the PC says it is smaller than the what the box says " .
Do to the crappy job our modern US educational system does most of these students have never * heard * of the concept of a number base and have no concept of how positional numbers actually work .
So , to answer the question I first have to explain how numbers work , and then explain that computer people have used a coincidence the happens to make 2 ^ 10 be close enough to 10 ^ 3 as an excuse to misuse the standard prefixes and given them a new definition .
The usually response is that nerds are stupid...In the US at least our schools have decided not to teach the basic mathematical concepts that are needed to understand the difference between a " mebi " and a " mega " .
We might as well just stop using binary based units everywhere.I 'm not sure when the schools in the US stopped teaching arithmetic .
When I was teaching in the 1970s I used to assign students to write a program that would read a number base and a number in that base .
The program should then read another number base and print the number in that base .
( for simplicity I restricted the possible bases to the range 1 to 36 so you could use the digits and the English letters as digits .
) This is a trivial assignment that I usually used to introduce recursion and the simplest level of IO .
When I gave the same assignment in the early 2000s I got room full of blank looks .
One brave student asked what class they were supposed to have taken to learn what a number base was .
I learned all this in 4th grade .
After asking the class I realized that not one person in the room , including several college graduates , have ever encountered the terms.Ok , I 'll stop ranting now.Stonewolf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Among the classes I teach in a junior college is something called "Intro to personal computing".
A question that comes up all the time goes something like, "I bought a new hard drive and the PC says it is smaller than the  what the box says".
Do to the crappy job our modern US educational system does most of these students have never *heard* of the concept of a number base and have no concept of how positional numbers actually work.
So, to answer the question I first have to explain how numbers work, and then explain that computer people have used a coincidence the happens to make 2^10 be close enough to 10^3 as an excuse to misuse the standard prefixes and given them a new definition.
The usually response is that nerds are stupid...In the US at least our schools have decided not to teach the basic mathematical concepts that are needed to understand the difference between a "mebi" and a "mega".
We might as well just stop using binary based units everywhere.I'm not sure when the schools in the US stopped teaching arithmetic.
When I was teaching in the 1970s I used to assign students to write a program that would read a number base and a number in that base.
The program should then read another number base and print the number in that base.
(for simplicity I restricted the possible bases to the range 1 to 36 so you could use the digits and the English letters as digits.
) This is a trivial assignment that I usually used to introduce recursion and the simplest level of IO.
When I gave the same assignment in the early 2000s I got room full of blank looks.
One brave student asked what class they were supposed to have taken to learn what a number base was.
I learned all this in 4th grade.
After asking the class I realized that not one person in the room, including several college graduates, have ever encountered the terms.Ok, I'll stop ranting now.Stonewolf</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422</id>
	<title>Re:Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>darkpixel2k</author>
	<datestamp>1269711720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hard drives, on the other hand, have nothing that is fundamentally based on a power of 2.</p></div><p>
Well--except that <i>pesky</i> material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1' state or a '0' state.  Most people call that a 'bit'.  Strangely enough, that 'binary' state is conducive to measuring in powers of two...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard drives , on the other hand , have nothing that is fundamentally based on a power of 2 .
Well--except that pesky material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1 ' state or a '0 ' state .
Most people call that a 'bit' .
Strangely enough , that 'binary ' state is conducive to measuring in powers of two.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard drives, on the other hand, have nothing that is fundamentally based on a power of 2.
Well--except that pesky material on the surface of a disk that can store either a '1' state or a '0' state.
Most people call that a 'bit'.
Strangely enough, that 'binary' state is conducive to measuring in powers of two...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642512</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269683640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The novice programmer thinks there are 1000 bytes in one kilo-byte. The master programmer thinks there are 1024 meters in a kilometer.</p><p>for the sake of this joke alone we should keep the notation.</p><p>And seriously, unlike breaking HTML/CSS/Javascript standards, having the K=1014 when it is appended to BYTES makes sense. just like having 1 byte=8bit makes sense. I'm sure soon enough they will want to change byte to dec-bit=10bits and have us all using Short=0..1023, oh but wait, that's not a nice number, so we'll have processors cap it at 1000 and simulate the overflow...</p><p>Thanks, but no thanks...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The novice programmer thinks there are 1000 bytes in one kilo-byte .
The master programmer thinks there are 1024 meters in a kilometer.for the sake of this joke alone we should keep the notation.And seriously , unlike breaking HTML/CSS/Javascript standards , having the K = 1014 when it is appended to BYTES makes sense .
just like having 1 byte = 8bit makes sense .
I 'm sure soon enough they will want to change byte to dec-bit = 10bits and have us all using Short = 0..1023 , oh but wait , that 's not a nice number , so we 'll have processors cap it at 1000 and simulate the overflow...Thanks , but no thanks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The novice programmer thinks there are 1000 bytes in one kilo-byte.
The master programmer thinks there are 1024 meters in a kilometer.for the sake of this joke alone we should keep the notation.And seriously, unlike breaking HTML/CSS/Javascript standards, having the K=1014 when it is appended to BYTES makes sense.
just like having 1 byte=8bit makes sense.
I'm sure soon enough they will want to change byte to dec-bit=10bits and have us all using Short=0..1023, oh but wait, that's not a nice number, so we'll have processors cap it at 1000 and simulate the overflow...Thanks, but no thanks...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641642</id>
	<title>Metric vs Imperial</title>
	<author>Spearhawk</author>
	<datestamp>1269719820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I'm starting to understand why it's so hard to introduce the metric system in countries using the imperial system. I've always thought it as rather silly, the metric system is a international standard and generally superior in our base 10 world, so why should it be so hard to switch over? Now I think I see why.
</p><p>
Emotionally I'm against the idea of starting to use kB, MB, GB, etc, in their SI meaning for computers. We have always used the base 2 definition for computers, why would we need to change, base 2 is native to computers so it makes sense, I know that a kB is 1024 bytes, I know why my 1 TB drive "lose" 61 GB. A small and elitist part of me even likes the fact that most don't know this, so I can "educate" them.
</p><p>
Thinking logically I can see why it is a good idea to switch over to SI even for computers, as others have already pointed out it is already used for a lot of things in computers, frequency, transfer rates, etc. Having different systems are just confusing and, as HD manufacturers have shown us, there's no need to in modern computers. Oh sure, a few percentage of us needs to know about the base 2:ness of computers, so that we can ensure that things line up correctly, but the wast majority never needs to know and is only confused when we insist that kilo is 1024, or perhaps even worse that 1024 is kibi (they'd just laugh at that).
</p><p>
In the end 1 TB and 931 GiB is the same number of bytes (well, close enough), just two different ways of writing the same thing, one that makes much more sense to the waste majority of people.
</p><p>
So logically I can see why this would be a good idea, emotionally, I don't think so. So yea, I understand now why introducing the metric system is such a hard thing to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm starting to understand why it 's so hard to introduce the metric system in countries using the imperial system .
I 've always thought it as rather silly , the metric system is a international standard and generally superior in our base 10 world , so why should it be so hard to switch over ?
Now I think I see why .
Emotionally I 'm against the idea of starting to use kB , MB , GB , etc , in their SI meaning for computers .
We have always used the base 2 definition for computers , why would we need to change , base 2 is native to computers so it makes sense , I know that a kB is 1024 bytes , I know why my 1 TB drive " lose " 61 GB .
A small and elitist part of me even likes the fact that most do n't know this , so I can " educate " them .
Thinking logically I can see why it is a good idea to switch over to SI even for computers , as others have already pointed out it is already used for a lot of things in computers , frequency , transfer rates , etc .
Having different systems are just confusing and , as HD manufacturers have shown us , there 's no need to in modern computers .
Oh sure , a few percentage of us needs to know about the base 2 : ness of computers , so that we can ensure that things line up correctly , but the wast majority never needs to know and is only confused when we insist that kilo is 1024 , or perhaps even worse that 1024 is kibi ( they 'd just laugh at that ) .
In the end 1 TB and 931 GiB is the same number of bytes ( well , close enough ) , just two different ways of writing the same thing , one that makes much more sense to the waste majority of people .
So logically I can see why this would be a good idea , emotionally , I do n't think so .
So yea , I understand now why introducing the metric system is such a hard thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I'm starting to understand why it's so hard to introduce the metric system in countries using the imperial system.
I've always thought it as rather silly, the metric system is a international standard and generally superior in our base 10 world, so why should it be so hard to switch over?
Now I think I see why.
Emotionally I'm against the idea of starting to use kB, MB, GB, etc, in their SI meaning for computers.
We have always used the base 2 definition for computers, why would we need to change, base 2 is native to computers so it makes sense, I know that a kB is 1024 bytes, I know why my 1 TB drive "lose" 61 GB.
A small and elitist part of me even likes the fact that most don't know this, so I can "educate" them.
Thinking logically I can see why it is a good idea to switch over to SI even for computers, as others have already pointed out it is already used for a lot of things in computers, frequency, transfer rates, etc.
Having different systems are just confusing and, as HD manufacturers have shown us, there's no need to in modern computers.
Oh sure, a few percentage of us needs to know about the base 2:ness of computers, so that we can ensure that things line up correctly, but the wast majority never needs to know and is only confused when we insist that kilo is 1024, or perhaps even worse that 1024 is kibi (they'd just laugh at that).
In the end 1 TB and 931 GiB is the same number of bytes (well, close enough), just two different ways of writing the same thing, one that makes much more sense to the waste majority of people.
So logically I can see why this would be a good idea, emotionally, I don't think so.
So yea, I understand now why introducing the metric system is such a hard thing to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640676</id>
	<title>Re:ubuntu joins apple...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269712980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, i think that you are misunderstanding what a byte, and bit is..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , i think that you are misunderstanding what a byte , and bit is. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, i think that you are misunderstanding what a byte, and bit is..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642606</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>PhunkySchtuff</author>
	<datestamp>1269684300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A better comparison would be using metric units in the US, because metrics are based on SI and imperial units are more like the weird way bits and bytes are counted into kilobytes, megabytes etc.</p><p>Saying that 1024 is a kilo never made any sense to anyone. I'm really glad we're finally entering an age where computers represent datasizes in units people can understand.</p></div><p>Now I am beginning to understand the resistance to change here. It's imperial versus metric all over again. People arbitrarily defined 1kB = 1024B and 1MB = 1048576 B because it was as convenient at the time as using inches and gallons, and now they don't want to change.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A better comparison would be using metric units in the US , because metrics are based on SI and imperial units are more like the weird way bits and bytes are counted into kilobytes , megabytes etc.Saying that 1024 is a kilo never made any sense to anyone .
I 'm really glad we 're finally entering an age where computers represent datasizes in units people can understand.Now I am beginning to understand the resistance to change here .
It 's imperial versus metric all over again .
People arbitrarily defined 1kB = 1024B and 1MB = 1048576 B because it was as convenient at the time as using inches and gallons , and now they do n't want to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A better comparison would be using metric units in the US, because metrics are based on SI and imperial units are more like the weird way bits and bytes are counted into kilobytes, megabytes etc.Saying that 1024 is a kilo never made any sense to anyone.
I'm really glad we're finally entering an age where computers represent datasizes in units people can understand.Now I am beginning to understand the resistance to change here.
It's imperial versus metric all over again.
People arbitrarily defined 1kB = 1024B and 1MB = 1048576 B because it was as convenient at the time as using inches and gallons, and now they don't want to change.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640252</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1269710820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's next? Imperial units for us Europeans?</p></div><p>Hell no.  Imperial units for file sizes.  A byte will be twelve bits, a kilobyte will be 3 bytes, and a megabyte will be 5280 bytes.  A petabyte will be 5.87849981x10^12 megabytes.  There won't really be such things as terabytes or gigabytes, which will make drive manufacturers happy because most of their drives are measured in TB or GB.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's next ?
Imperial units for us Europeans ? Hell no .
Imperial units for file sizes .
A byte will be twelve bits , a kilobyte will be 3 bytes , and a megabyte will be 5280 bytes .
A petabyte will be 5.87849981x10 ^ 12 megabytes .
There wo n't really be such things as terabytes or gigabytes , which will make drive manufacturers happy because most of their drives are measured in TB or GB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's next?
Imperial units for us Europeans?Hell no.
Imperial units for file sizes.
A byte will be twelve bits, a kilobyte will be 3 bytes, and a megabyte will be 5280 bytes.
A petabyte will be 5.87849981x10^12 megabytes.
There won't really be such things as terabytes or gigabytes, which will make drive manufacturers happy because most of their drives are measured in TB or GB.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640662</id>
	<title>Not any I have</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269712920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have three SSDs, although two are from the same company. None uses binary GB. The Intel ones don't either, which means all the Intel rebrands (Kingston, etc.) don't either.</p><p>So that leaves maybe OCZ doing it, and honestly I'd be surprised if they did either. Both bad blocks and the spare blocks used for read-modify-write accesses have to come from somewhere and instead of adding more chips, every SSD I've used just uses extra 7\% of blocks that NAND chips provide since they are sized in GiB to provide those blocks. Basically, they take the NAND size in GiB and advertise that as their size in GB, and use the difference between the two for housekeeping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have three SSDs , although two are from the same company .
None uses binary GB .
The Intel ones do n't either , which means all the Intel rebrands ( Kingston , etc .
) do n't either.So that leaves maybe OCZ doing it , and honestly I 'd be surprised if they did either .
Both bad blocks and the spare blocks used for read-modify-write accesses have to come from somewhere and instead of adding more chips , every SSD I 've used just uses extra 7 \ % of blocks that NAND chips provide since they are sized in GiB to provide those blocks .
Basically , they take the NAND size in GiB and advertise that as their size in GB , and use the difference between the two for housekeeping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have three SSDs, although two are from the same company.
None uses binary GB.
The Intel ones don't either, which means all the Intel rebrands (Kingston, etc.
) don't either.So that leaves maybe OCZ doing it, and honestly I'd be surprised if they did either.
Both bad blocks and the spare blocks used for read-modify-write accesses have to come from somewhere and instead of adding more chips, every SSD I've used just uses extra 7\% of blocks that NAND chips provide since they are sized in GiB to provide those blocks.
Basically, they take the NAND size in GiB and advertise that as their size in GB, and use the difference between the two for housekeeping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646326</id>
	<title>Re:Why not change the human base instead?</title>
	<author>TeknoHog</author>
	<datestamp>1269777300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By those same arguments, 2 is an even more natural base. In binary, you can count to 1024 without removing your shoes, so 132 you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>By those same arguments , 2 is an even more natural base .
In binary , you can count to 1024 without removing your shoes , so 132 you ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By those same arguments, 2 is an even more natural base.
In binary, you can count to 1024 without removing your shoes, so 132 you ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640522</id>
	<title>Well, in that case</title>
	<author>Unka Willbur</author>
	<datestamp>1269712260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I now officially define the "Work Week" as 4 days. From here on in, the work week will be written as "1 work-week == 4 days".

See, that was easy. For my next trick, I shall implement the 17 hour clock!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I now officially define the " Work Week " as 4 days .
From here on in , the work week will be written as " 1 work-week = = 4 days " .
See , that was easy .
For my next trick , I shall implement the 17 hour clock !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I now officially define the "Work Week" as 4 days.
From here on in, the work week will be written as "1 work-week == 4 days".
See, that was easy.
For my next trick, I shall implement the 17 hour clock!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640050</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269709740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"It looks like both Apple and Ubuntu are trying to get consumers to think that they use less disk space."

so they'll need less time to be amazed by full disk warnings popping up.
it looks to me like both apple and ubuntu are just giving up. those who know how big a MB actually is will continue knowing, and will quickly (and eagerly) find the ways to make their computers show sizes correclty. the others just don't care, so who minds anyway.
besides, those who just can't stand seeing a MB represented as 1000 KBs will just drop ubuntu for some other distro, if they ever did use ubuntu that is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It looks like both Apple and Ubuntu are trying to get consumers to think that they use less disk space .
" so they 'll need less time to be amazed by full disk warnings popping up .
it looks to me like both apple and ubuntu are just giving up .
those who know how big a MB actually is will continue knowing , and will quickly ( and eagerly ) find the ways to make their computers show sizes correclty .
the others just do n't care , so who minds anyway .
besides , those who just ca n't stand seeing a MB represented as 1000 KBs will just drop ubuntu for some other distro , if they ever did use ubuntu that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It looks like both Apple and Ubuntu are trying to get consumers to think that they use less disk space.
"

so they'll need less time to be amazed by full disk warnings popping up.
it looks to me like both apple and ubuntu are just giving up.
those who know how big a MB actually is will continue knowing, and will quickly (and eagerly) find the ways to make their computers show sizes correclty.
the others just don't care, so who minds anyway.
besides, those who just can't stand seeing a MB represented as 1000 KBs will just drop ubuntu for some other distro, if they ever did use ubuntu that is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641924</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1269722220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, you can: switch SI units to base-2. That also gets us the benefit of being able to count up to 1024 on our hands instead of a puny 10<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you can : switch SI units to base-2 .
That also gets us the benefit of being able to count up to 1024 on our hands instead of a puny 10 ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you can: switch SI units to base-2.
That also gets us the benefit of being able to count up to 1024 on our hands instead of a puny 10 ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641440</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269718320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bytes are not SI units. What kind of nerd are you exactly? Oh, right, not a computer nerd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bytes are not SI units .
What kind of nerd are you exactly ?
Oh , right , not a computer nerd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bytes are not SI units.
What kind of nerd are you exactly?
Oh, right, not a computer nerd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642776</id>
	<title>Change for the sake of change</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1269685500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 1024 thing is perhaps unfortunate, but it exists.
</p><p>Trying to change it is the domain of people who want to get rid of the pound weight in Holland (500 grams), the sea mile, the horse power, AM/PM. There are valid reasons to get rid of all of them, and it hasn't worked has it? Anyone remember swatch time? Supposed to get around the problems on the internet with timezones? No? Well that is my point.
</p><p>What about Esperanto? Yeah, the language for everyone. Anyone here speak it? Didn't think so.
</p><p>It would be very hard to argue with the usefulness of everyone speaking the same language, and yet, it has not happened. We can't even get the English speaking nations to use the same spelling.
</p><p>But ultimately, the problem the people behind this are trying to solve, just doesn't exist. People are not horribly confused by modern cars having their power measured in the unit of an animal they never used. They don't need to know the exact power because it is never needed. Really, when has anyone who is not an engineer ever REALLY needed to know the power of a car? Yeah, you need to know to make up for your small penis, but really, you don't need to know for traveling along smooth highways.
</p><p>And the same with sea-miles. So it is different. And? Do I really care if I get the speed of a ship wrong because I have no idea what knots are? If it matters, someone will have done the conversion and most times all I need to know is that 10 knots is faster then 9, so I can be really impressed if you do 11.
</p><p>And there has never been a problem with kb. Only when HD makers realized they could fake the size of their product by switching to a different measurement did ONE segment of the industry change the naming. Nobody else did. MS, the largest maker of OS for dummies, has seen no need to change its display. So why does Ubuntu? So it can be extra confusing for people switching between OS'es? Between versions of Ubuntu? And will Ubuntu adapt every program in its entire packaging system to reflect this?
</p><p>I am afraid this excersise is that of someone fighting windmills. No doubt in their mind it is a essential quest, in the eyes of the world you are just a loonie.
</p><p>In the real world, you just got to accept that somethings are the way they are and that is it. It is the realm of politicians who no longer talk to voters to start changing things that don't need changing. Lawyers, art majors and other wastes of society deciding that technical education isn't producing suitably rounded children, then wondering why no one can fix the plumbing anymore and drop out rates are skyrocketing.
</p><p>If you make a change, you should always justify it. And the justification for this change seems to be "because scamming HD companies and grammar nazi's want it" and that ain't good enough.
</p><p>One quick test you can do yourself: Would HD makers have changed to the "correct" measurements if it had made their HD's appear smaller?
</p><p>Gosh, I don't think so. Do you? Then everyone who tries to claim that HD makers did it for the love of science should shut the fuck up. HD makers are scamming their buyers. And you know, most of the normalization attempts are fueled by the idea to STOP scams. Not enable them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 1024 thing is perhaps unfortunate , but it exists .
Trying to change it is the domain of people who want to get rid of the pound weight in Holland ( 500 grams ) , the sea mile , the horse power , AM/PM .
There are valid reasons to get rid of all of them , and it has n't worked has it ?
Anyone remember swatch time ?
Supposed to get around the problems on the internet with timezones ?
No ? Well that is my point .
What about Esperanto ?
Yeah , the language for everyone .
Anyone here speak it ?
Did n't think so .
It would be very hard to argue with the usefulness of everyone speaking the same language , and yet , it has not happened .
We ca n't even get the English speaking nations to use the same spelling .
But ultimately , the problem the people behind this are trying to solve , just does n't exist .
People are not horribly confused by modern cars having their power measured in the unit of an animal they never used .
They do n't need to know the exact power because it is never needed .
Really , when has anyone who is not an engineer ever REALLY needed to know the power of a car ?
Yeah , you need to know to make up for your small penis , but really , you do n't need to know for traveling along smooth highways .
And the same with sea-miles .
So it is different .
And ? Do I really care if I get the speed of a ship wrong because I have no idea what knots are ?
If it matters , someone will have done the conversion and most times all I need to know is that 10 knots is faster then 9 , so I can be really impressed if you do 11 .
And there has never been a problem with kb .
Only when HD makers realized they could fake the size of their product by switching to a different measurement did ONE segment of the industry change the naming .
Nobody else did .
MS , the largest maker of OS for dummies , has seen no need to change its display .
So why does Ubuntu ?
So it can be extra confusing for people switching between OS'es ?
Between versions of Ubuntu ?
And will Ubuntu adapt every program in its entire packaging system to reflect this ?
I am afraid this excersise is that of someone fighting windmills .
No doubt in their mind it is a essential quest , in the eyes of the world you are just a loonie .
In the real world , you just got to accept that somethings are the way they are and that is it .
It is the realm of politicians who no longer talk to voters to start changing things that do n't need changing .
Lawyers , art majors and other wastes of society deciding that technical education is n't producing suitably rounded children , then wondering why no one can fix the plumbing anymore and drop out rates are skyrocketing .
If you make a change , you should always justify it .
And the justification for this change seems to be " because scamming HD companies and grammar nazi 's want it " and that ai n't good enough .
One quick test you can do yourself : Would HD makers have changed to the " correct " measurements if it had made their HD 's appear smaller ?
Gosh , I do n't think so .
Do you ?
Then everyone who tries to claim that HD makers did it for the love of science should shut the fuck up .
HD makers are scamming their buyers .
And you know , most of the normalization attempts are fueled by the idea to STOP scams .
Not enable them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 1024 thing is perhaps unfortunate, but it exists.
Trying to change it is the domain of people who want to get rid of the pound weight in Holland (500 grams), the sea mile, the horse power, AM/PM.
There are valid reasons to get rid of all of them, and it hasn't worked has it?
Anyone remember swatch time?
Supposed to get around the problems on the internet with timezones?
No? Well that is my point.
What about Esperanto?
Yeah, the language for everyone.
Anyone here speak it?
Didn't think so.
It would be very hard to argue with the usefulness of everyone speaking the same language, and yet, it has not happened.
We can't even get the English speaking nations to use the same spelling.
But ultimately, the problem the people behind this are trying to solve, just doesn't exist.
People are not horribly confused by modern cars having their power measured in the unit of an animal they never used.
They don't need to know the exact power because it is never needed.
Really, when has anyone who is not an engineer ever REALLY needed to know the power of a car?
Yeah, you need to know to make up for your small penis, but really, you don't need to know for traveling along smooth highways.
And the same with sea-miles.
So it is different.
And? Do I really care if I get the speed of a ship wrong because I have no idea what knots are?
If it matters, someone will have done the conversion and most times all I need to know is that 10 knots is faster then 9, so I can be really impressed if you do 11.
And there has never been a problem with kb.
Only when HD makers realized they could fake the size of their product by switching to a different measurement did ONE segment of the industry change the naming.
Nobody else did.
MS, the largest maker of OS for dummies, has seen no need to change its display.
So why does Ubuntu?
So it can be extra confusing for people switching between OS'es?
Between versions of Ubuntu?
And will Ubuntu adapt every program in its entire packaging system to reflect this?
I am afraid this excersise is that of someone fighting windmills.
No doubt in their mind it is a essential quest, in the eyes of the world you are just a loonie.
In the real world, you just got to accept that somethings are the way they are and that is it.
It is the realm of politicians who no longer talk to voters to start changing things that don't need changing.
Lawyers, art majors and other wastes of society deciding that technical education isn't producing suitably rounded children, then wondering why no one can fix the plumbing anymore and drop out rates are skyrocketing.
If you make a change, you should always justify it.
And the justification for this change seems to be "because scamming HD companies and grammar nazi's want it" and that ain't good enough.
One quick test you can do yourself: Would HD makers have changed to the "correct" measurements if it had made their HD's appear smaller?
Gosh, I don't think so.
Do you?
Then everyone who tries to claim that HD makers did it for the love of science should shut the fuck up.
HD makers are scamming their buyers.
And you know, most of the normalization attempts are fueled by the idea to STOP scams.
Not enable them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642706</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>PhunkySchtuff</author>
	<datestamp>1269684960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Before, the situation was simple.</p><p>Everything not binary-represented-information related used base-10.</p><p>Everything binary-represented-information related (computing related, bandwidth related etc) used base 2, because the<br>most important thing is how much information is being passed around or stored, and base-2 is the natural unit for<br>measuring information, which comes in bits, and whose complexity is related to powers of the number of bits.</p></div><p>Now the situation is even more simple. Everything uses base 10 as that's what we naturally count with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before , the situation was simple.Everything not binary-represented-information related used base-10.Everything binary-represented-information related ( computing related , bandwidth related etc ) used base 2 , because themost important thing is how much information is being passed around or stored , and base-2 is the natural unit formeasuring information , which comes in bits , and whose complexity is related to powers of the number of bits.Now the situation is even more simple .
Everything uses base 10 as that 's what we naturally count with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before, the situation was simple.Everything not binary-represented-information related used base-10.Everything binary-represented-information related (computing related, bandwidth related etc) used base 2, because themost important thing is how much information is being passed around or stored, and base-2 is the natural unit formeasuring information, which comes in bits, and whose complexity is related to powers of the number of bits.Now the situation is even more simple.
Everything uses base 10 as that's what we naturally count with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643832</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1269696480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the change. People do not like change. That's why the US is still using gallons instead of liters. Or people in the UK are so pissed on using kilogram and liter as units. They still by pounds and drink pints.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the change .
People do not like change .
That 's why the US is still using gallons instead of liters .
Or people in the UK are so pissed on using kilogram and liter as units .
They still by pounds and drink pints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the change.
People do not like change.
That's why the US is still using gallons instead of liters.
Or people in the UK are so pissed on using kilogram and liter as units.
They still by pounds and drink pints.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640612</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid.</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1269712680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm waiting to see where some of the change/no-change people fall when it comes to metric conversion. Most of the arguments sound similar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting to see where some of the change/no-change people fall when it comes to metric conversion .
Most of the arguments sound similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm waiting to see where some of the change/no-change people fall when it comes to metric conversion.
Most of the arguments sound similar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641302</id>
	<title>Re:Bye Ubuntu, was nice knowing you.</title>
	<author>skastrik</author>
	<datestamp>1269717240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...  Change the way file sizes are read so that User X and User Y see different file sizes using the same filesystem, even potentially the same remotely mounted disk?</p></div><p>Honestly I don't see your problem. When working with files and drives, approximate sizes usually suffice. Give or take 10\%, it rarely matters.
</p><p>

Now, if I really need to compare sizes, I use the single bytes. And if the numbers are big, SI prefixes *just work* unambiguously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... Change the way file sizes are read so that User X and User Y see different file sizes using the same filesystem , even potentially the same remotely mounted disk ? Honestly I do n't see your problem .
When working with files and drives , approximate sizes usually suffice .
Give or take 10 \ % , it rarely matters .
Now , if I really need to compare sizes , I use the single bytes .
And if the numbers are big , SI prefixes * just work * unambiguously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...  Change the way file sizes are read so that User X and User Y see different file sizes using the same filesystem, even potentially the same remotely mounted disk?Honestly I don't see your problem.
When working with files and drives, approximate sizes usually suffice.
Give or take 10\%, it rarely matters.
Now, if I really need to compare sizes, I use the single bytes.
And if the numbers are big, SI prefixes *just work* unambiguously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645520</id>
	<title>Small minded asshats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269717240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was so often the target of hated arguments for using the Giga binary Byte notation in my thesis. My professor didn't know it at first but was fine with it. But coworkers just went mental.<br>They see it as an us vs. them fight, the evil corporate (haha coming from guys working at Intel) system is redefining "our" metrics. As I read in a previous post, this 1. is no big deal: just an "i" to add and 2. it offers so much more clarity.<br>I don't get how you even can waste time arguing about such a thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was so often the target of hated arguments for using the Giga binary Byte notation in my thesis .
My professor did n't know it at first but was fine with it .
But coworkers just went mental.They see it as an us vs. them fight , the evil corporate ( haha coming from guys working at Intel ) system is redefining " our " metrics .
As I read in a previous post , this 1. is no big deal : just an " i " to add and 2. it offers so much more clarity.I do n't get how you even can waste time arguing about such a thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was so often the target of hated arguments for using the Giga binary Byte notation in my thesis.
My professor didn't know it at first but was fine with it.
But coworkers just went mental.They see it as an us vs. them fight, the evil corporate (haha coming from guys working at Intel) system is redefining "our" metrics.
As I read in a previous post, this 1. is no big deal: just an "i" to add and 2. it offers so much more clarity.I don't get how you even can waste time arguing about such a thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642388</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying...</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1269682440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Base-10 has no place with computers because nothing with computers is calculated/measured in base-10</i></p><p>Except when that computer is on a network, which is all base 10.  Or when the computer has a CPU in it that is running, which is measured in base 10.</p><p>Arguably 100\% of the things computers exist for, humans, calculate and measure in base 10.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Base-10 has no place with computers because nothing with computers is calculated/measured in base-10Except when that computer is on a network , which is all base 10 .
Or when the computer has a CPU in it that is running , which is measured in base 10.Arguably 100 \ % of the things computers exist for , humans , calculate and measure in base 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Base-10 has no place with computers because nothing with computers is calculated/measured in base-10Except when that computer is on a network, which is all base 10.
Or when the computer has a CPU in it that is running, which is measured in base 10.Arguably 100\% of the things computers exist for, humans, calculate and measure in base 10.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31650304</id>
	<title>Re:Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269770820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well--except when you 'count' the number of 'bits' on the 'hard drive', it has nothing to do with 'powers' of 2, so using the correct 'prefixes' as defined by a 'world-wide standard' and embraced by every country in the world except for 3 is probably a good idea.</p><p>Or are you against standardization of common prefixes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well--except when you 'count ' the number of 'bits ' on the 'hard drive ' , it has nothing to do with 'powers ' of 2 , so using the correct 'prefixes ' as defined by a 'world-wide standard ' and embraced by every country in the world except for 3 is probably a good idea.Or are you against standardization of common prefixes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well--except when you 'count' the number of 'bits' on the 'hard drive', it has nothing to do with 'powers' of 2, so using the correct 'prefixes' as defined by a 'world-wide standard' and embraced by every country in the world except for 3 is probably a good idea.Or are you against standardization of common prefixes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641076</id>
	<title>We learned it this way ! Don't change it!</title>
	<author>fuelnatchos</author>
	<datestamp>1269715860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The current system is not perfect, but it works and everybody uses it! In fact, that's what I learned in school and I wouldn't want anybody telling me that I'm wrong because I feel that using arbitrarily the term "kilo" for something else than 10^3 is great!
It's like those units: miles, gallons and inches! Everybody uses that ! Converting to the so-called "Metric System" would be such a waste, 'cause that's not what we learned in school... No country would be as dumb as to take such a decision...

Oh wait, they all did except for Burma, Liberia, and the United States... damn French people...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The current system is not perfect , but it works and everybody uses it !
In fact , that 's what I learned in school and I would n't want anybody telling me that I 'm wrong because I feel that using arbitrarily the term " kilo " for something else than 10 ^ 3 is great !
It 's like those units : miles , gallons and inches !
Everybody uses that !
Converting to the so-called " Metric System " would be such a waste , 'cause that 's not what we learned in school... No country would be as dumb as to take such a decision.. . Oh wait , they all did except for Burma , Liberia , and the United States... damn French people.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current system is not perfect, but it works and everybody uses it!
In fact, that's what I learned in school and I wouldn't want anybody telling me that I'm wrong because I feel that using arbitrarily the term "kilo" for something else than 10^3 is great!
It's like those units: miles, gallons and inches!
Everybody uses that !
Converting to the so-called "Metric System" would be such a waste, 'cause that's not what we learned in school... No country would be as dumb as to take such a decision...

Oh wait, they all did except for Burma, Liberia, and the United States... damn French people...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644598</id>
	<title>4.29GB of RAM?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269705060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will Ubuntu start reporting that I have 4.29GB of RAM?  What about network connection speeds?  I assume they're going to stick with base 2 for those which shows just what bullshit this is.</p><p>Still, I'm glad to see that Canonicalis are on the side of the consumer rather than the hard disk manufacturers....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will Ubuntu start reporting that I have 4.29GB of RAM ?
What about network connection speeds ?
I assume they 're going to stick with base 2 for those which shows just what bullshit this is.Still , I 'm glad to see that Canonicalis are on the side of the consumer rather than the hard disk manufacturers... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will Ubuntu start reporting that I have 4.29GB of RAM?
What about network connection speeds?
I assume they're going to stick with base 2 for those which shows just what bullshit this is.Still, I'm glad to see that Canonicalis are on the side of the consumer rather than the hard disk manufacturers....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641326</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>game kid</author>
	<datestamp>1269717360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Being consistently wrong for a very long time doesn't make it better, it is just proof of
an unwillingness to admit to a stupid initial mistake you didn't even make yourself.</p></div></blockquote><p>This.  When I see someone say "k = 1024 is the right way" or such, I think of others that say "we've always put IN GOD WE TRUST on our bills", "no one's ever stolen money from me so I shouldn't need a safe or a bank account", or "it's not like <strong>I</strong> have a pre-existing condition that'll keep me from an HMO".</p><p>Sometimes, traditions are wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being consistently wrong for a very long time does n't make it better , it is just proof of an unwillingness to admit to a stupid initial mistake you did n't even make yourself.This .
When I see someone say " k = 1024 is the right way " or such , I think of others that say " we 've always put IN GOD WE TRUST on our bills " , " no one 's ever stolen money from me so I should n't need a safe or a bank account " , or " it 's not like I have a pre-existing condition that 'll keep me from an HMO " .Sometimes , traditions are wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being consistently wrong for a very long time doesn't make it better, it is just proof of
an unwillingness to admit to a stupid initial mistake you didn't even make yourself.This.
When I see someone say "k = 1024 is the right way" or such, I think of others that say "we've always put IN GOD WE TRUST on our bills", "no one's ever stolen money from me so I shouldn't need a safe or a bank account", or "it's not like I have a pre-existing condition that'll keep me from an HMO".Sometimes, traditions are wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641418</id>
	<title>How could clarity be a bad thing?</title>
	<author>Metrathon</author>
	<datestamp>1269718200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always presumed that hard drive manufacturers used base-10 because it gives an extra 7\% to report when you are doing drives in the giga byte range. A little annoying but not surprising.</p><p>What is confusing is the wild randomness in kb, kB, Kb, and KB even in a good fraction of the posts above. For this reason alone it makes sense to state what you mean, and if you are going to make that move the only sane choice is to leave k=1000 and find something else for 1024...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always presumed that hard drive manufacturers used base-10 because it gives an extra 7 \ % to report when you are doing drives in the giga byte range .
A little annoying but not surprising.What is confusing is the wild randomness in kb , kB , Kb , and KB even in a good fraction of the posts above .
For this reason alone it makes sense to state what you mean , and if you are going to make that move the only sane choice is to leave k = 1000 and find something else for 1024.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always presumed that hard drive manufacturers used base-10 because it gives an extra 7\% to report when you are doing drives in the giga byte range.
A little annoying but not surprising.What is confusing is the wild randomness in kb, kB, Kb, and KB even in a good fraction of the posts above.
For this reason alone it makes sense to state what you mean, and if you are going to make that move the only sane choice is to leave k=1000 and find something else for 1024...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640202</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Svartalf</author>
	<datestamp>1269710580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're not numerically, mathematically wrong for base-2 concepts, which is where the use of 1024 for "kilo", etc. came from.  It's the closest whole base-2 number to the 1000 mark.  It's not a "bad sloppy programming" induced "habit"- it's from the dark and distant past of computing and computer science that the whole thing came from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not numerically , mathematically wrong for base-2 concepts , which is where the use of 1024 for " kilo " , etc .
came from .
It 's the closest whole base-2 number to the 1000 mark .
It 's not a " bad sloppy programming " induced " habit " - it 's from the dark and distant past of computing and computer science that the whole thing came from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not numerically, mathematically wrong for base-2 concepts, which is where the use of 1024 for "kilo", etc.
came from.
It's the closest whole base-2 number to the 1000 mark.
It's not a "bad sloppy programming" induced "habit"- it's from the dark and distant past of computing and computer science that the whole thing came from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640098</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Lally Singh</author>
	<datestamp>1269709980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there's the matter of actually telling the *truth*, as the current base-2 values are flat-out, numerically, mathematically *wrong* values for KB, MB, GB.  It's literally bad sloppy programming that's caused a habit that's stuck around for far too long.  When a HDD says it has 40 GB, it actually has 40 GB.  When most modern OSs say a file is 40 GB, it literally *is* *not* 40 GB.  It's 40 GiB.  The underlying byte counts are really different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there 's the matter of actually telling the * truth * , as the current base-2 values are flat-out , numerically , mathematically * wrong * values for KB , MB , GB .
It 's literally bad sloppy programming that 's caused a habit that 's stuck around for far too long .
When a HDD says it has 40 GB , it actually has 40 GB .
When most modern OSs say a file is 40 GB , it literally * is * * not * 40 GB .
It 's 40 GiB .
The underlying byte counts are really different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there's the matter of actually telling the *truth*, as the current base-2 values are flat-out, numerically, mathematically *wrong* values for KB, MB, GB.
It's literally bad sloppy programming that's caused a habit that's stuck around for far too long.
When a HDD says it has 40 GB, it actually has 40 GB.
When most modern OSs say a file is 40 GB, it literally *is* *not* 40 GB.
It's 40 GiB.
The underlying byte counts are really different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</id>
	<title>Really annoying</title>
	<author>Maïdjeurtam</author>
	<datestamp>1269709920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work mostly on OS X and this so-called feature annoys me to no end. I do not know the size of my files anymore, I have to go to the terminal just to know the size of a file (bash hasn't been polluted by this feature).</p><p>I've been using computers for 20+ years and I do \_not\_ want to change how I think file sizes, especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count. What's next? Imperial units for us Europeans?</p><p>The most annoying? That nobody has hacked Snow Leopard to restore real units.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work mostly on OS X and this so-called feature annoys me to no end .
I do not know the size of my files anymore , I have to go to the terminal just to know the size of a file ( bash has n't been polluted by this feature ) .I 've been using computers for 20 + years and I do \ _not \ _ want to change how I think file sizes , especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count .
What 's next ?
Imperial units for us Europeans ? The most annoying ?
That nobody has hacked Snow Leopard to restore real units .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work mostly on OS X and this so-called feature annoys me to no end.
I do not know the size of my files anymore, I have to go to the terminal just to know the size of a file (bash hasn't been polluted by this feature).I've been using computers for 20+ years and I do \_not\_ want to change how I think file sizes, especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count.
What's next?
Imperial units for us Europeans?The most annoying?
That nobody has hacked Snow Leopard to restore real units.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640372</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying...</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1269711480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there's a certain Mars probe that might argue you shouldn't screw around with measurement units too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there 's a certain Mars probe that might argue you should n't screw around with measurement units too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there's a certain Mars probe that might argue you shouldn't screw around with measurement units too much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642408</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269682740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Full ACK!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Full ACK !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Full ACK!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642624</id>
	<title>Re:Base-19 which base</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269684420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read that in *decimal*, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read that in * decimal * , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read that in *decimal*, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645676</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269719940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of those bits, and you don't even bother thinking about shoving them through your processor, which has a 32 bit register.  Now I need to figure out how many chunks I'm going to divide up a megabyte into to shove it through that 32 bit register.  Well, I have 2^23 (a byte is 2^3) bits to go through there, and 32 bits is 2^5, so I'll have to send 2^5 chunks 2^18 times.  There is no point in changing this to decimal, because it goes through in binary.  2^18 in binary is 100 0000 0000 0000 0000.</p><p>I did that in my head.  The math is easy with a 1024 bit kilobyte.  Try doing that in your head if your megabyte is 1,000,000 bits instead of 2^20 bits.  It's a lot frickin harder.</p><p>That's why communications equipment uses <i>bits</i> and memory uses <i>bytes</i>.  They are different, and everybody understands it except the people who have been confused by hard drive manufacturer <i>salesmen</i>, who used a completely different metric specifically in order to confuse customers and make them think they were buying a bigger hard drive than they actually were.</p><p>What's truly ridiculous is they use standard kilobytes when referring to the internals of the hard drive.  512kb clusters - think that means 512,000 byte clusters?  Well, it doesn't, it means 524,288 byte clusters, because when actually working with a binary system (which a hard drive is) it just makes a hell of a lot more sense.</p><p>Using SI units is nothing more than a marketing gimmick, and it's the Linux community of all people falling for some corporate tool ripping them off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of those bits , and you do n't even bother thinking about shoving them through your processor , which has a 32 bit register .
Now I need to figure out how many chunks I 'm going to divide up a megabyte into to shove it through that 32 bit register .
Well , I have 2 ^ 23 ( a byte is 2 ^ 3 ) bits to go through there , and 32 bits is 2 ^ 5 , so I 'll have to send 2 ^ 5 chunks 2 ^ 18 times .
There is no point in changing this to decimal , because it goes through in binary .
2 ^ 18 in binary is 100 0000 0000 0000 0000.I did that in my head .
The math is easy with a 1024 bit kilobyte .
Try doing that in your head if your megabyte is 1,000,000 bits instead of 2 ^ 20 bits .
It 's a lot frickin harder.That 's why communications equipment uses bits and memory uses bytes .
They are different , and everybody understands it except the people who have been confused by hard drive manufacturer salesmen , who used a completely different metric specifically in order to confuse customers and make them think they were buying a bigger hard drive than they actually were.What 's truly ridiculous is they use standard kilobytes when referring to the internals of the hard drive .
512kb clusters - think that means 512,000 byte clusters ?
Well , it does n't , it means 524,288 byte clusters , because when actually working with a binary system ( which a hard drive is ) it just makes a hell of a lot more sense.Using SI units is nothing more than a marketing gimmick , and it 's the Linux community of all people falling for some corporate tool ripping them off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of those bits, and you don't even bother thinking about shoving them through your processor, which has a 32 bit register.
Now I need to figure out how many chunks I'm going to divide up a megabyte into to shove it through that 32 bit register.
Well, I have 2^23 (a byte is 2^3) bits to go through there, and 32 bits is 2^5, so I'll have to send 2^5 chunks 2^18 times.
There is no point in changing this to decimal, because it goes through in binary.
2^18 in binary is 100 0000 0000 0000 0000.I did that in my head.
The math is easy with a 1024 bit kilobyte.
Try doing that in your head if your megabyte is 1,000,000 bits instead of 2^20 bits.
It's a lot frickin harder.That's why communications equipment uses bits and memory uses bytes.
They are different, and everybody understands it except the people who have been confused by hard drive manufacturer salesmen, who used a completely different metric specifically in order to confuse customers and make them think they were buying a bigger hard drive than they actually were.What's truly ridiculous is they use standard kilobytes when referring to the internals of the hard drive.
512kb clusters - think that means 512,000 byte clusters?
Well, it doesn't, it means 524,288 byte clusters, because when actually working with a binary system (which a hard drive is) it just makes a hell of a lot more sense.Using SI units is nothing more than a marketing gimmick, and it's the Linux community of all people falling for some corporate tool ripping them off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641106</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269716040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Saying that 1024 is a kilo never made any sense to anyone. I'm really glad we're finally<br>&gt; entering an age where computers represent datasizes in units people can understand.</p><p>Yes it does.  It makes perfect sense to anyone who knows anything at all about computers, or at least didn't sleep through their entire degree from start to finish.  Using base-2 isn not some silly and arbitrary thing someone made up... like using the size of some king's toenail as a unit of length... it's fundamental to the way computers work!  (Unless YOU know of some way to make semiconductors work with ten states instead of two that I... and the entire rest of the industry... seem to have missed.)</p><p>Base-10 only came about so some shady hardware component vendors could rip us off.  And systems vendors and programmers should never have let the SOBs get away with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Saying that 1024 is a kilo never made any sense to anyone .
I 'm really glad we 're finally &gt; entering an age where computers represent datasizes in units people can understand.Yes it does .
It makes perfect sense to anyone who knows anything at all about computers , or at least did n't sleep through their entire degree from start to finish .
Using base-2 isn not some silly and arbitrary thing someone made up... like using the size of some king 's toenail as a unit of length... it 's fundamental to the way computers work !
( Unless YOU know of some way to make semiconductors work with ten states instead of two that I... and the entire rest of the industry... seem to have missed .
) Base-10 only came about so some shady hardware component vendors could rip us off .
And systems vendors and programmers should never have let the SOBs get away with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Saying that 1024 is a kilo never made any sense to anyone.
I'm really glad we're finally&gt; entering an age where computers represent datasizes in units people can understand.Yes it does.
It makes perfect sense to anyone who knows anything at all about computers, or at least didn't sleep through their entire degree from start to finish.
Using base-2 isn not some silly and arbitrary thing someone made up... like using the size of some king's toenail as a unit of length... it's fundamental to the way computers work!
(Unless YOU know of some way to make semiconductors work with ten states instead of two that I... and the entire rest of the industry... seem to have missed.
)Base-10 only came about so some shady hardware component vendors could rip us off.
And systems vendors and programmers should never have let the SOBs get away with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640026</id>
	<title>Re:ubuntu joins apple...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269709500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The H.D.D. manufacturers *do* market their sizes correctly. They even make a point of telling you on the box what GB actually stands for.</p><p>It's MS and lazy programming that's created the idea it's the HDD manufacturers faults - disc based media and memory based media operate in different ways. Getting it right for once will only reduce confusion - and the silly lawsuits in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The H.D.D .
manufacturers * do * market their sizes correctly .
They even make a point of telling you on the box what GB actually stands for.It 's MS and lazy programming that 's created the idea it 's the HDD manufacturers faults - disc based media and memory based media operate in different ways .
Getting it right for once will only reduce confusion - and the silly lawsuits in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The H.D.D.
manufacturers *do* market their sizes correctly.
They even make a point of telling you on the box what GB actually stands for.It's MS and lazy programming that's created the idea it's the HDD manufacturers faults - disc based media and memory based media operate in different ways.
Getting it right for once will only reduce confusion - and the silly lawsuits in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641494</id>
	<title>Let the flames commence.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269718800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is my point:<br>
<br>
This is SLASHDOT, NEWS FOR NERDS.<br>
<br>
If you insist that KB = 1000 bytes, then get off our lawn. REALLY. You cannot be a nerd. Let me repeat that...<br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...YOU.....CANNOT......BE....A..........NERD<br>
<br>
You might be in the tech industry.. but you arent a fucking nerd if you think KB should equal 1000 bytes. Nerds know why its not just stupid, but also completely unacceptable. You obviously dont know why its completely unacceptable, making you by definition, NOT A NERD. That makes you a GEEK.<br>
<br>
Now I shall raise the fucking stakes: You dont need to know the exact size of anything unless you are a nerd. Thats right.. THIS DOESNT EVEN MATTER TO NON-NERDS. You dont care if it says KB or KiB, and in fact if KB meant 31414 bytes it would not matter to you, because <b>your kind</b> only works in <i>like quantities<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. <b>your kind</b> <i>doesnt perform unit conversions on these values.</i> <br>
<br>
There. I've said my piece. All you geeks can go fuck yourselves. NERDS4EVER!!!!!</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is my point : This is SLASHDOT , NEWS FOR NERDS .
If you insist that KB = 1000 bytes , then get off our lawn .
REALLY. You can not be a nerd .
Let me repeat that.. . ...YOU.....CAN NOT......BE....A..........NERD You might be in the tech industry.. but you arent a fucking nerd if you think KB should equal 1000 bytes .
Nerds know why its not just stupid , but also completely unacceptable .
You obviously dont know why its completely unacceptable , making you by definition , NOT A NERD .
That makes you a GEEK .
Now I shall raise the fucking stakes : You dont need to know the exact size of anything unless you are a nerd .
Thats right.. THIS DOESNT EVEN MATTER TO NON-NERDS .
You dont care if it says KB or KiB , and in fact if KB meant 31414 bytes it would not matter to you , because your kind only works in like quantities .. your kind doesnt perform unit conversions on these values .
There. I 've said my piece .
All you geeks can go fuck yourselves .
NERDS4EVER ! ! ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is my point:

This is SLASHDOT, NEWS FOR NERDS.
If you insist that KB = 1000 bytes, then get off our lawn.
REALLY. You cannot be a nerd.
Let me repeat that...
 ...YOU.....CANNOT......BE....A..........NERD

You might be in the tech industry.. but you arent a fucking nerd if you think KB should equal 1000 bytes.
Nerds know why its not just stupid, but also completely unacceptable.
You obviously dont know why its completely unacceptable, making you by definition, NOT A NERD.
That makes you a GEEK.
Now I shall raise the fucking stakes: You dont need to know the exact size of anything unless you are a nerd.
Thats right.. THIS DOESNT EVEN MATTER TO NON-NERDS.
You dont care if it says KB or KiB, and in fact if KB meant 31414 bytes it would not matter to you, because your kind only works in like quantities .. your kind doesnt perform unit conversions on these values.
There. I've said my piece.
All you geeks can go fuck yourselves.
NERDS4EVER!!!!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645450</id>
	<title>Choice.</title>
	<author>Sunnz</author>
	<datestamp>1269715860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care as long as I can choose *iB or whatever label they use for base 2, rather than Apple's way of Kilo = 1000 and we are not giving you the option to use Kibi = 1024 even though they are both technically correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care as long as I can choose * iB or whatever label they use for base 2 , rather than Apple 's way of Kilo = 1000 and we are not giving you the option to use Kibi = 1024 even though they are both technically correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care as long as I can choose *iB or whatever label they use for base 2, rather than Apple's way of Kilo = 1000 and we are not giving you the option to use Kibi = 1024 even though they are both technically correct.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642124</id>
	<title>Re:This is the right way to do it</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1269680400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, this "kibi" and "mebi" nonsense has not been made a part of the SI system at all.  It's just an IEC industrial standard which the industries themselves have mostly not adopted or used in all this time.</p><p>HDD sizes are not modulo 512.  They are multiple of 512 (and coming to be multiples of 4096).  Personally, I've never seen any problem with hard drive sizes being expressed as multiples of powers of 1000.  However, I do have a problem with a Western Digital drive I recently purchased that was marketed as 320GB which only has 319370035200 bytes (e.g. I was shorted by 629964800 bytes.  All the manufacturer legal defenses claiming the industry uses a standard of powers of 1000 (which they do) won't apply when I sue WD for $629,964,800<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , this " kibi " and " mebi " nonsense has not been made a part of the SI system at all .
It 's just an IEC industrial standard which the industries themselves have mostly not adopted or used in all this time.HDD sizes are not modulo 512 .
They are multiple of 512 ( and coming to be multiples of 4096 ) .
Personally , I 've never seen any problem with hard drive sizes being expressed as multiples of powers of 1000 .
However , I do have a problem with a Western Digital drive I recently purchased that was marketed as 320GB which only has 319370035200 bytes ( e.g .
I was shorted by 629964800 bytes .
All the manufacturer legal defenses claiming the industry uses a standard of powers of 1000 ( which they do ) wo n't apply when I sue WD for $ 629,964,800 : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, this "kibi" and "mebi" nonsense has not been made a part of the SI system at all.
It's just an IEC industrial standard which the industries themselves have mostly not adopted or used in all this time.HDD sizes are not modulo 512.
They are multiple of 512 (and coming to be multiples of 4096).
Personally, I've never seen any problem with hard drive sizes being expressed as multiples of powers of 1000.
However, I do have a problem with a Western Digital drive I recently purchased that was marketed as 320GB which only has 319370035200 bytes (e.g.
I was shorted by 629964800 bytes.
All the manufacturer legal defenses claiming the industry uses a standard of powers of 1000 (which they do) won't apply when I sue WD for $629,964,800 :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</id>
	<title>Good move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269711600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm surprised by the majority here that is against this. What kind of nerds exactly are you?<br>
SI prefixes are defined as base-10, period. Every other use is simply wrong.<br>
Being consistently wrong for a very long time doesn't make it better, it is just proof of<br>
an unwillingness to admit to a stupid initial mistake you didn't even make yourself.<br>
As nerds, you're supposed to be better than that.<br>
<br>
How can you be all <i>for</i> standards-compliance with browsers and rile <i>against</i> a <b>much</b> <br>
stronger, decades-old ISO standard (which is based on a <i>centuries</i> old definition from the<br>
beginning of the metric system - "kilo" has been 1000 for over 200 years)?<br>
<br>
On the other hand, you are the same crowd regularly writing about "mbit/s" while meaning "Mbit/s",<br>
thereby being off by just a tiny, unimportant, paltry factor of <b>a billion</b>.<br>
Seriously, what's wrong with you?<br>
<br>
-- an annoyed scientist</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised by the majority here that is against this .
What kind of nerds exactly are you ?
SI prefixes are defined as base-10 , period .
Every other use is simply wrong .
Being consistently wrong for a very long time does n't make it better , it is just proof of an unwillingness to admit to a stupid initial mistake you did n't even make yourself .
As nerds , you 're supposed to be better than that .
How can you be all for standards-compliance with browsers and rile against a much stronger , decades-old ISO standard ( which is based on a centuries old definition from the beginning of the metric system - " kilo " has been 1000 for over 200 years ) ?
On the other hand , you are the same crowd regularly writing about " mbit/s " while meaning " Mbit/s " , thereby being off by just a tiny , unimportant , paltry factor of a billion .
Seriously , what 's wrong with you ?
-- an annoyed scientist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised by the majority here that is against this.
What kind of nerds exactly are you?
SI prefixes are defined as base-10, period.
Every other use is simply wrong.
Being consistently wrong for a very long time doesn't make it better, it is just proof of
an unwillingness to admit to a stupid initial mistake you didn't even make yourself.
As nerds, you're supposed to be better than that.
How can you be all for standards-compliance with browsers and rile against a much 
stronger, decades-old ISO standard (which is based on a centuries old definition from the
beginning of the metric system - "kilo" has been 1000 for over 200 years)?
On the other hand, you are the same crowd regularly writing about "mbit/s" while meaning "Mbit/s",
thereby being off by just a tiny, unimportant, paltry factor of a billion.
Seriously, what's wrong with you?
-- an annoyed scientist</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643034</id>
	<title>Ubuntu is not the name of a OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269687840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article is wrong in many cases</p><p>1] Ubuntu is not a name of OS. It is the Linux (the kernel = Linux = monolithic OS)</p><p>2] Canonical is not changing how the OS works (Linux). But GNOME is changing how the UI shows the data. Canonical is not doing anything here.</p><p>3] We still have 1's and 0's in computer and we can not expect it to be changed. unless someone gets idea how to actually turn the whole computer science around. Canonical is not doing it, it is just doing it on marketing (for its own purposes to sell OWN producs, not open source or even LINUX).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is wrong in many cases1 ] Ubuntu is not a name of OS .
It is the Linux ( the kernel = Linux = monolithic OS ) 2 ] Canonical is not changing how the OS works ( Linux ) .
But GNOME is changing how the UI shows the data .
Canonical is not doing anything here.3 ] We still have 1 's and 0 's in computer and we can not expect it to be changed .
unless someone gets idea how to actually turn the whole computer science around .
Canonical is not doing it , it is just doing it on marketing ( for its own purposes to sell OWN producs , not open source or even LINUX ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is wrong in many cases1] Ubuntu is not a name of OS.
It is the Linux (the kernel = Linux = monolithic OS)2] Canonical is not changing how the OS works (Linux).
But GNOME is changing how the UI shows the data.
Canonical is not doing anything here.3] We still have 1's and 0's in computer and we can not expect it to be changed.
unless someone gets idea how to actually turn the whole computer science around.
Canonical is not doing it, it is just doing it on marketing (for its own purposes to sell OWN producs, not open source or even LINUX).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640886</id>
	<title>Re:Just use the right prefix</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1269714600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As long as they use the correct prefix, I don't really mind whether they use base 2 or 10 to display the numbers.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>I'd prefer they not display numbers in base 2. Reading a long string of ones and zeroes is difficult.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as they use the correct prefix , I do n't really mind whether they use base 2 or 10 to display the numbers .
I 'd prefer they not display numbers in base 2 .
Reading a long string of ones and zeroes is difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as they use the correct prefix, I don't really mind whether they use base 2 or 10 to display the numbers.
I'd prefer they not display numbers in base 2.
Reading a long string of ones and zeroes is difficult.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645488</id>
	<title>Re:While we're about it...</title>
	<author>Pence128</author>
	<datestamp>1269716520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>actually, this is more like changing it back, after it was changed to 3.</htmltext>
<tokenext>actually , this is more like changing it back , after it was changed to 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually, this is more like changing it back, after it was changed to 3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642312</id>
	<title>Did I miss something or are we still talking Linux</title>
	<author>master\_fluffy</author>
	<datestamp>1269681840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really don't understand what all the debate is about.  Ubuntu is still a form of linux.  The point of open source and more specifically linux is the ability to change whatever you wish about it.  I personally don't like that OSX and ubuntu are moving towards a different standard but I don't have to put up with it.  I'll treat it like any other bug fix.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't understand what all the debate is about .
Ubuntu is still a form of linux .
The point of open source and more specifically linux is the ability to change whatever you wish about it .
I personally do n't like that OSX and ubuntu are moving towards a different standard but I do n't have to put up with it .
I 'll treat it like any other bug fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't understand what all the debate is about.
Ubuntu is still a form of linux.
The point of open source and more specifically linux is the ability to change whatever you wish about it.
I personally don't like that OSX and ubuntu are moving towards a different standard but I don't have to put up with it.
I'll treat it like any other bug fix.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641694</id>
	<title>What's the problem?</title>
	<author>Crookdotter</author>
	<datestamp>1269720300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why can't we just move to kibibytes for everything, it's just a slight change in how you say it and everything is as it was before. I'm sure you'll be able to change the way Ubuntu reports sizes from kibi to kilo if you want to, but kilo = 1000 and even though IT has been an exception for many years doesn't mean it should stay that way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't we just move to kibibytes for everything , it 's just a slight change in how you say it and everything is as it was before .
I 'm sure you 'll be able to change the way Ubuntu reports sizes from kibi to kilo if you want to , but kilo = 1000 and even though IT has been an exception for many years does n't mean it should stay that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't we just move to kibibytes for everything, it's just a slight change in how you say it and everything is as it was before.
I'm sure you'll be able to change the way Ubuntu reports sizes from kibi to kilo if you want to, but kilo = 1000 and even though IT has been an exception for many years doesn't mean it should stay that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641624</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1269719700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm surprised by the majority here that is against this. What kind of nerds exactly are you?</i><br>Nerds that understand computing, and language?</p><p>Computers are inherently binary devices, not base 10 devices.  It's quite natural that people who designed computers based all their units on base 2 rather than base 10.  This has essentially been the case since the dawn of modern computing 70 years ago.<br><i><br>Being consistently wrong for a very long time doesn't make it better<br></i><br>Consistently wrong about a word definition?  Sounds like a weak argument to me.  Ever read a dictionary?</p><p><i><br>How can you be all for standards-compliance with browsers and rile against a much<br>stronger, decades-old ISO standard (which is based on a centuries old definition from the<br>beginning of the metric system - "kilo" has been 1000 for over 200 years)?<br></i><br>Because we understand that words can have multiple definitions based on context.  Everyone can easily understand that a kilobyte is 1024 bytes, and a kilometer is 1000 meters.  That's just how language works.  Standards are about interoperability, not about "being right".</p><p><i><br>On the other hand, you are the same crowd regularly writing about "mbit/s" while meaning "Mbit/s",<br>thereby being off by just a tiny, unimportant, paltry factor of a billion.<br>Seriously, what's wrong with you?<br></i><br>Right.  I've certainly never seen engineers in non-computing fields make the mistake of not even labeling a graph, or labeling a unit before.  I've sure never heard of a mars space probe that went awry because of confusion over units before.  But hey, it's only people in computing that make such mistakes, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised by the majority here that is against this .
What kind of nerds exactly are you ? Nerds that understand computing , and language ? Computers are inherently binary devices , not base 10 devices .
It 's quite natural that people who designed computers based all their units on base 2 rather than base 10 .
This has essentially been the case since the dawn of modern computing 70 years ago.Being consistently wrong for a very long time does n't make it betterConsistently wrong about a word definition ?
Sounds like a weak argument to me .
Ever read a dictionary ? How can you be all for standards-compliance with browsers and rile against a muchstronger , decades-old ISO standard ( which is based on a centuries old definition from thebeginning of the metric system - " kilo " has been 1000 for over 200 years ) ? Because we understand that words can have multiple definitions based on context .
Everyone can easily understand that a kilobyte is 1024 bytes , and a kilometer is 1000 meters .
That 's just how language works .
Standards are about interoperability , not about " being right " .On the other hand , you are the same crowd regularly writing about " mbit/s " while meaning " Mbit/s " ,thereby being off by just a tiny , unimportant , paltry factor of a billion.Seriously , what 's wrong with you ? Right .
I 've certainly never seen engineers in non-computing fields make the mistake of not even labeling a graph , or labeling a unit before .
I 've sure never heard of a mars space probe that went awry because of confusion over units before .
But hey , it 's only people in computing that make such mistakes , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised by the majority here that is against this.
What kind of nerds exactly are you?Nerds that understand computing, and language?Computers are inherently binary devices, not base 10 devices.
It's quite natural that people who designed computers based all their units on base 2 rather than base 10.
This has essentially been the case since the dawn of modern computing 70 years ago.Being consistently wrong for a very long time doesn't make it betterConsistently wrong about a word definition?
Sounds like a weak argument to me.
Ever read a dictionary?How can you be all for standards-compliance with browsers and rile against a muchstronger, decades-old ISO standard (which is based on a centuries old definition from thebeginning of the metric system - "kilo" has been 1000 for over 200 years)?Because we understand that words can have multiple definitions based on context.
Everyone can easily understand that a kilobyte is 1024 bytes, and a kilometer is 1000 meters.
That's just how language works.
Standards are about interoperability, not about "being right".On the other hand, you are the same crowd regularly writing about "mbit/s" while meaning "Mbit/s",thereby being off by just a tiny, unimportant, paltry factor of a billion.Seriously, what's wrong with you?Right.
I've certainly never seen engineers in non-computing fields make the mistake of not even labeling a graph, or labeling a unit before.
I've sure never heard of a mars space probe that went awry because of confusion over units before.
But hey, it's only people in computing that make such mistakes, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642518</id>
	<title>Re:And I thought geeks were supposed to be FLEXIBL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269683640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like being a stick in the mud - I love PAL 8!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like being a stick in the mud - I love PAL 8 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like being a stick in the mud - I love PAL 8!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642720</id>
	<title>Re:Let the flames commence.</title>
	<author>CortoMaltese</author>
	<datestamp>1269685080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you insist that KB = 1000 bytes, then get off our lawn. REALLY. You cannot be a nerd. Let me repeat that...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...YOU.....CANNOT......BE....A..........NERD

You dont care if it says KB or KiB</p></div><p>Heh, gotta take the bait. We all agree 1 KB = 1 KiB = 1024 B, per JEDEC.
</p><p>
But 1 kB = 1000 B.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you insist that KB = 1000 bytes , then get off our lawn .
REALLY. You can not be a nerd .
Let me repeat that... ...YOU.....CAN NOT......BE....A..........NERD You dont care if it says KB or KiBHeh , got ta take the bait .
We all agree 1 KB = 1 KiB = 1024 B , per JEDEC .
But 1 kB = 1000 B .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you insist that KB = 1000 bytes, then get off our lawn.
REALLY. You cannot be a nerd.
Let me repeat that... ...YOU.....CANNOT......BE....A..........NERD

You dont care if it says KB or KiBHeh, gotta take the bait.
We all agree 1 KB = 1 KiB = 1024 B, per JEDEC.
But 1 kB = 1000 B.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258</id>
	<title>Re:Really annoying</title>
	<author>dingen</author>
	<datestamp>1269710880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been using computers for 20+ years and I do \_not\_ want to change how I think file sizes, especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count.</p></div><p>How is it possible you survived working in IT for over 20 years and not being able to adapt to radical changes? These sort of things happen all the time. One moment you're working from LSB upward, then you're suddenly working from MSB downward. 8 bit changed into 16, into 32 and now in 64. Filenames can't be longer than 8 characters and now they can. A file can't be larger than 4 GB and now it can. And now finally, operating systems are beginning to understand SI units (which we've been using for all sorts of applications for hundreds of years) and *THAT* is a problem?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What's next? Imperial units for us Europeans?</p></div><p>A better comparison would be using metric units in the US, because metrics are based on SI and imperial units are more like the weird way bits and bytes are counted into kilobytes, megabytes etc.</p><p>Saying that 1024 is a kilo never made any sense to anyone. I'm really glad we're finally entering an age where computers represent datasizes in units people can understand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using computers for 20 + years and I do \ _not \ _ want to change how I think file sizes , especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count.How is it possible you survived working in IT for over 20 years and not being able to adapt to radical changes ?
These sort of things happen all the time .
One moment you 're working from LSB upward , then you 're suddenly working from MSB downward .
8 bit changed into 16 , into 32 and now in 64 .
Filenames ca n't be longer than 8 characters and now they can .
A file ca n't be larger than 4 GB and now it can .
And now finally , operating systems are beginning to understand SI units ( which we 've been using for all sorts of applications for hundreds of years ) and * THAT * is a problem ? What 's next ?
Imperial units for us Europeans ? A better comparison would be using metric units in the US , because metrics are based on SI and imperial units are more like the weird way bits and bytes are counted into kilobytes , megabytes etc.Saying that 1024 is a kilo never made any sense to anyone .
I 'm really glad we 're finally entering an age where computers represent datasizes in units people can understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using computers for 20+ years and I do \_not\_ want to change how I think file sizes, especially since I feel that base 10 is the wrong way to count.How is it possible you survived working in IT for over 20 years and not being able to adapt to radical changes?
These sort of things happen all the time.
One moment you're working from LSB upward, then you're suddenly working from MSB downward.
8 bit changed into 16, into 32 and now in 64.
Filenames can't be longer than 8 characters and now they can.
A file can't be larger than 4 GB and now it can.
And now finally, operating systems are beginning to understand SI units (which we've been using for all sorts of applications for hundreds of years) and *THAT* is a problem?What's next?
Imperial units for us Europeans?A better comparison would be using metric units in the US, because metrics are based on SI and imperial units are more like the weird way bits and bytes are counted into kilobytes, megabytes etc.Saying that 1024 is a kilo never made any sense to anyone.
I'm really glad we're finally entering an age where computers represent datasizes in units people can understand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640916</id>
	<title>Re:Bye Ubuntu, was nice knowing you.</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1269714840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a related development, Ubuntu has decided to redefine all x86 opcodes, because the current ones are "confusing". Backwards compatibility was considered, but it was decided that it was more idealogically pure to redefine all of them. "To leave the old meaning in place and define new opcodes that had no meaning before would have felt dirty. We wanted to make a clean break, without any baggage."</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a related development , Ubuntu has decided to redefine all x86 opcodes , because the current ones are " confusing " .
Backwards compatibility was considered , but it was decided that it was more idealogically pure to redefine all of them .
" To leave the old meaning in place and define new opcodes that had no meaning before would have felt dirty .
We wanted to make a clean break , without any baggage .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a related development, Ubuntu has decided to redefine all x86 opcodes, because the current ones are "confusing".
Backwards compatibility was considered, but it was decided that it was more idealogically pure to redefine all of them.
"To leave the old meaning in place and define new opcodes that had no meaning before would have felt dirty.
We wanted to make a clean break, without any baggage.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645390</id>
	<title>Re:Annoying...</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1269715020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's just settle this and be done with it, with the i = base 2, without it base 10. Strike that, and reverse it and I'll be onboard. Use the new prefix with the i to refer to incorrect base 10 numbers and at the same time save existing documentation and instruction materials. Do that, and you'll have a convert.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's just settle this and be done with it , with the i = base 2 , without it base 10 .
Strike that , and reverse it and I 'll be onboard .
Use the new prefix with the i to refer to incorrect base 10 numbers and at the same time save existing documentation and instruction materials .
Do that , and you 'll have a convert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's just settle this and be done with it, with the i = base 2, without it base 10.
Strike that, and reverse it and I'll be onboard.
Use the new prefix with the i to refer to incorrect base 10 numbers and at the same time save existing documentation and instruction materials.
Do that, and you'll have a convert.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640706</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641908</id>
	<title>Re:SI is for REAL world measurements.</title>
	<author>Homburg</author>
	<datestamp>1269722160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1024 is <em>just as arbitrary</em> as 1000; indeed, the only reason why it as chosen is because it is close to 1000. There are cases where using powers of two is genuinely useful in measuring things related to computers, but in those cases, 1024 isn't a particularly relevant value; 1024 would only be a significant number on machines with ten-bit bytes, of which there are not very many. The only reason 1024 is used is because of a bizarre superstition about powers of two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1024 is just as arbitrary as 1000 ; indeed , the only reason why it as chosen is because it is close to 1000 .
There are cases where using powers of two is genuinely useful in measuring things related to computers , but in those cases , 1024 is n't a particularly relevant value ; 1024 would only be a significant number on machines with ten-bit bytes , of which there are not very many .
The only reason 1024 is used is because of a bizarre superstition about powers of two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1024 is just as arbitrary as 1000; indeed, the only reason why it as chosen is because it is close to 1000.
There are cases where using powers of two is genuinely useful in measuring things related to computers, but in those cases, 1024 isn't a particularly relevant value; 1024 would only be a significant number on machines with ten-bit bytes, of which there are not very many.
The only reason 1024 is used is because of a bizarre superstition about powers of two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643870</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>prefec2</author>
	<datestamp>1269696660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ubuntu is not for nerds only. It is for all people. And even when the few geeks o this globe are shocked by using kb = 1000 b, the other 6 Giga people do understand the new way better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu is not for nerds only .
It is for all people .
And even when the few geeks o this globe are shocked by using kb = 1000 b , the other 6 Giga people do understand the new way better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu is not for nerds only.
It is for all people.
And even when the few geeks o this globe are shocked by using kb = 1000 b, the other 6 Giga people do understand the new way better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646520</id>
	<title>Finally!</title>
	<author>frambris</author>
	<datestamp>1269781500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kB = 1000 bytes, kiB = 1024 bytes<br>kb = 1000 bits. ooh! you forgot that one, you 8-bit/byte zeelots?<br>Why isn't 1 kb 1024-bits? Ha!</p><p>I welcome the change. kB should be 1000. And it should be up to the user to select if he/she want to see sizes in kB or kiB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kB = 1000 bytes , kiB = 1024 byteskb = 1000 bits .
ooh ! you forgot that one , you 8-bit/byte zeelots ? Why is n't 1 kb 1024-bits ?
Ha ! I welcome the change .
kB should be 1000 .
And it should be up to the user to select if he/she want to see sizes in kB or kiB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kB = 1000 bytes, kiB = 1024 byteskb = 1000 bits.
ooh! you forgot that one, you 8-bit/byte zeelots?Why isn't 1 kb 1024-bits?
Ha!I welcome the change.
kB should be 1000.
And it should be up to the user to select if he/she want to see sizes in kB or kiB.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642412</id>
	<title>Re:Bye Ubuntu, was nice knowing you.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269682740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have <b>researchers</b> that would have trouble keeping this straight, then I seriously have to question their competence.  This is a rather elementary distinction, and Ubuntu is helping matters by removing the ambiguities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have researchers that would have trouble keeping this straight , then I seriously have to question their competence .
This is a rather elementary distinction , and Ubuntu is helping matters by removing the ambiguities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have researchers that would have trouble keeping this straight, then I seriously have to question their competence.
This is a rather elementary distinction, and Ubuntu is helping matters by removing the ambiguities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641432</id>
	<title>Re:ubuntu joins apple...</title>
	<author>fyoder</author>
	<datestamp>1269718260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately the people doing the renaming didn't understand that the sound of the name counts for a lot.  There wouldn't be as much resistance if they used moga instead of mebi.</p><p>Mega (and I would argue moga) sound more manly, and like it or not males dominate IT.  Mebi sounds like the name of a magic pixie who has gender issues.</p><p>Hard drive manufacturers understood marketing when choosing to use base 10.  Too bad the people who came up with the new terms didn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately the people doing the renaming did n't understand that the sound of the name counts for a lot .
There would n't be as much resistance if they used moga instead of mebi.Mega ( and I would argue moga ) sound more manly , and like it or not males dominate IT .
Mebi sounds like the name of a magic pixie who has gender issues.Hard drive manufacturers understood marketing when choosing to use base 10 .
Too bad the people who came up with the new terms did n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately the people doing the renaming didn't understand that the sound of the name counts for a lot.
There wouldn't be as much resistance if they used moga instead of mebi.Mega (and I would argue moga) sound more manly, and like it or not males dominate IT.
Mebi sounds like the name of a magic pixie who has gender issues.Hard drive manufacturers understood marketing when choosing to use base 10.
Too bad the people who came up with the new terms didn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641658</id>
	<title>Re:Good move</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1269720000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue is not so much the correct usage of the first ISO part for me. The problem arises with what to use as the second part of the ISO part. Is it bit or byte you are going to use as default? First determine that is and go from there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is not so much the correct usage of the first ISO part for me .
The problem arises with what to use as the second part of the ISO part .
Is it bit or byte you are going to use as default ?
First determine that is and go from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue is not so much the correct usage of the first ISO part for me.
The problem arises with what to use as the second part of the ISO part.
Is it bit or byte you are going to use as default?
First determine that is and go from there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643838</id>
	<title>Re:And I thought geeks were supposed to be FLEXIBL</title>
	<author>swilver</author>
	<datestamp>1269696540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no need.  We can just use our own OS that will work as we want it to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no need .
We can just use our own OS that will work as we want it to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no need.
We can just use our own OS that will work as we want it to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31650346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31648282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31654472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31655106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31684598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31647726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31757462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31654780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31650304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31695682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31660722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31650442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31657778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_27_1451238_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31650304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31684598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641106
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31655106
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31657778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31660722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31654472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640168
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31647726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31757462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31650346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31695682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31654780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31643748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31650442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31645178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640300
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640576
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31644318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31639942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31641160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31646334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31642624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31648282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_27_1451238.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_27_1451238.31640380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
