"intelligent" disk drives

[Sridhar Ayengar]

Fred Cisin wrote:
>>   > I don't think that there is any question that 102400 is
>>   >a totally indefensible, irresponsible, and ridiculous number
>>   >for defining a "Megabyte".
> 
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Ensor wrote:
>> You're quite right, the actual number is "1048576" or 1024KB. But that's not
>> your point is it?
> Yes, it is.
> There are arguments for 2 ^ 20  (1048576)
> There are arguments for 10 ^ 6  (1000000)
> 
> But (10 ^ 3) * (2 ^ 10)   (1024000)  manages to combine the disadvantages
> of both systems.

And exactly what's stopping me from assuming a 4-bit byte when making my 
calculations?  That "160GB" HDD suddenly becomes a "320GB" HDD.

Peace...  Sridhar