From: "Mark J. Reed" <mark_reed@sware.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 03:49:16 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: questions about bits and bytes [NOISE]
Message-ID: <9604121405.AA21928@shlep.sware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


JonWienke@aol.com writes:
\ In a message dated 96-04-11 20:26:44 EDT, jeffb@sware.com writes:
\ Citing sources from 1978 in the computing field is a little like using
\ dictionaries from the 1800's to dictate modern English usage.  My desktop
\ machine has as much computing power as some colleges had during that era.
\  We've come a long way, baby!  Yes, in the past, the term "byte" applied to
\ entities other than 8 bits, but "8 bits" IS the commonly accepted, standard
\ meaning of "byte" now, in the present.  The fact that the meaning and usage
\ of words can change over time is not relevant to current meaning and usage.
\  Anyone who wishes to dispute this should study the etymology of the word
\ "gay."
\ 
\ Jonathan Wienke
\ 

No, no.  What started this whole discussion was someone claiming that
bytes have ALWAYS been 8 bits.  That was the argument.  NO-ONE is
claiming that byte doesn't mean 8 bits NOW.  I think we have now
established that, yes, 'byte' is synonymous with 'octet' in the modern
computer era, and no, this was not always the case.  Now can we move on
to other matters?

--
Mark J. Reed
Email: mark_reed@sware.com - Voice: +1 404 315 6296 x158 - Fax: +1 404 315 6407
Hewlett-Packard Co. / 2957 Clairmont Rd Suite 220 / Atlanta GA 30329-1647
E-Mail Privacy by SecureMail.  Visit URL:http://www.secureware.com/ for details.

--
Mark J. Reed
Email: mark_reed@sware.com - Voice: +1 404 315 6296 x158 - Fax: +1 404 315 6407
Hewlett-Packard Co. / 2957 Clairmont Rd Suite 220 / Atlanta GA 30329-1647
E-Mail Privacy by SecureMail.  Visit URL:http://www.secureware.com/ for details.