TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: why bytes are Bs and not bs From:"Ridder, Fred" <F -dot- Ridder -at- DIALOGIC -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:40:53 -0400
Ah, bitten by a careless "always"...
But I must point out that there is a further problem with the
terminology you mention, and that is that one must specify
_metric_ ton, since the same unit name is very widely used in
the "English" system (ironically largely abandoned by the
English and is now used almost exclusively by Americans) for
2000 pounds (0.907 metric ton). Then there's the "long ton",
which is 2240 pounds (1.016 metric ton); and there's also the
"register ton" and the "freight ton" which are actually measures
of _volume_ rather than weight or mass. In other words, "ton"
is a terribly ambiguous unit of measurement unless the context
is absolutely clear.
In my post yesterday I *almost* brought up the issue of American
billions being much smaller than British (and European?) billions,
but decided that was a little far afield from the discussion. But
now that the subject is under discussion, I would like to point
out that this can be a major translation/localization issue.
Because the largest number that everybody agrees on the name
of is the million (10^6), we should all try to remember to express
larger numbers as multiples of the million (or else shift over to
scientific notation) to avoid the ambiguity.
As to the question of when one learns the metric system, I can
say that in the 60's those of us who were on a math/science
track through school were exposed to it by about the 7th
grade. I will agree that using it in one class in school is a whole
lot different than using it throughout one's daily life, though.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Ring, PRC [SMTP:prc -at- isa -dot- dknet -dot- dk]
>Sent: Thursday, June 12, 1997 6:06 AM
>To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Cc: Ridder, Fred
>Subject: Re: why bytes are Bs and not bs
>
>On 11 June 1997 Fred Ridder wrote:
>
>> Not quite right, Peter. ... consider the fact that 1 million grams
>> is always referred to as 1000 kilograms and not as "1 megagram".
>
>Not quite right, Fred!
>Be careful using the word "always". "1000 kilograms" is OK, but it's
>MUCH MORE often referred to as "1 ton" ;-)). We then start all over
>again with kiloton (kt), megaton (Mt), etc. THAT's why we don't use
>"megagram"!
>
>In some respects we also use for example "1000 million" instead of
>"1 billion", because "1 billion" in many languages is 10^12 and not
>10^9. It all depends on what's most practical and/or least confusing.
>
><snip>
>
>I *_DON'T_* want to start a huge emotional discussion for/against
>metrification, but I have wondered if the real problem for many
>British and American people is your tradition for non-metric units.
>In continental Europe, the use of these symbols was something we
>learned properly in school around 5th-6th grade, and not something
>we had to learn - or maybe pick-up more or less by chance - later on.
>
TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
