1996-04-12 - Re: questions about bits and bytes [NOISE]

Header Data

From: JonWienke@aol.com
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: f0edc2a6df8ced45797acaf3794a360fa52e763e1d66a8588fc3b2bb958296f0
Message ID: <960412012047270015300@mail06>
Reply To: _N/A

UTC Datetime: 1996-04-12 17:36:02 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 01:36:02 +0800

Raw message

From: JonWienke@aol.com
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 01:36:02 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: questions about bits and bytes [NOISE]
Message-ID: <960412012047_270015300@mail06>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In a message dated 96-04-11 20:26:44 EDT, jeffb@sware.com writes:

>[I told myself I was going to stay out of this, but Jim Bell's dogmatic
>stance irks me... ]  Here's a citation from "Portability of C Programs
>and the Unix System" by S.C. Johnson and D.M. Ritchie (yes, that Richie)
>in the Bell System Technical Journal volume 57, Number 6, July-August 1978.

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





Thread