As a public service I am re-posting this which is from my original blog. Toward the end of my other blog this became one of the more popular searches to my site. It really upset me how hard drive companies could be so devious so hopefully this will help explain some of what is going on.
Now get your mind out of the gutter and listen to what I have to say. For those who read my blog on a regular basis know, I recently bought a new HD, a Western Digital 120GB . I'm very happy with it in terms of how much more space I have now for all my stuff but it really does bother me that they claim their hard drive is 120 GB because it is not.
Anyone who knows something about programming knows that a mb is not 1,000,000 bytes even though mega means "1,000,000". In computer terms a megabyte is actually 2^20 bytes or 1,048,576 bytes. Equivilently, a gigabyte is not 1,000 megabytes, it is 2^10 megabytes or 1024 megabytes. Doing the math you can see that 120 GB really should be 122,880 megabytes. But that's not how Hard Drive manufacturers do it. They take the traditional approach of Mega meaning 1,000,000 and Giga meaning 1,000,000,000. Therefore when they claim 120 GB they really mean 120,000,000,000 bytes. Doing the conversion you will find that this means there are 114,440 megabytes or 111.8 GB. Quite a difference.
Why do they do this? Well like I said above SIZE MATTERS!. They are technically not lying to the consumers when they tell you that their drive is 120GB because in a traditional sense they are correct. In computer terms they are dead wrong and this is why when you install a hard drive you will always get significantly less room then you think you will. However, a hard drive manufacturer has no incentive to be honest with you because everyone else is not. Therefore if he advertised a Hard Drive as 111.8 GB (the correct number) instead of 120 GB (the wrong number) the casual consumer would think that the 120GB was more than 8 GB bigger even though they are exactly the same.
My Gelson's Experience
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
OK, So I haven't blogged in a week. It's not from being lazy, ok maybe just a little lazy, but I've been swamped at work. One of my coworkers is very ill but he was working on a very time sensitive project. With about a week to go I've been assigned to finish his work. Well for any of you who have ever read The Mythical Man Month can understand, this is an almost impossible situation. For those who haven't one of the basic principles is that you can't just bring in more people at the end of a project and expect them to be effective. There is too much time trying to figure out what is actually going on and then there is the added overhead of coordinating more people.
In other news. My weekly basketball game has gotten really crowded. That's not such a good thing since if you lose you may have to wait around 2 games before you get back on the court. We usually try to control the number of people who show up but its just that everyone is showing up on the same days. My finger still hasn't healed and its throwing off my game. Its been well over 2 months now and its still not better. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I keep playing and re-injuring it.
For those interested in my supermarket trials I think I've found my formula. From now on I think I'm going to do most of my shopping at Gelsons. It's a supermarket in the Paseo Colorado. Up until now I've avoided going there under the assumption that things were more expensive. Well I took my receipts from both Ralphs and Vons and did a price comparison. And low and behold everything I buy either cost the same or is less at Gelsons. I was dumbfounded. One thing I will concede is that while the everyday prices at Gelsons is less, you don't save the money by being a member like you do with Vons and Ralphs Club which can be very significant. Now this is just my shopping list. Maybe other people have had different experiences so don't flame me telling me I'm wrong.
One thing I didn't like at Gelsons was their selection. Its funny because Sandy likes them for their selection but not their prices. Go figure. They didn't have everything I wanted and I didn't like their choice of meats. Now they have a butcher where you can get exactly what you want but for those who know me know I don't like to be bothered with that. If I can't see it in front of me I can't make a decision about it (This is also why its dangerous for me to put food in the refrigerator crisper. I've found month old vegetables before). So I'll probably buy my meat at Vons.
In other news. My weekly basketball game has gotten really crowded. That's not such a good thing since if you lose you may have to wait around 2 games before you get back on the court. We usually try to control the number of people who show up but its just that everyone is showing up on the same days. My finger still hasn't healed and its throwing off my game. Its been well over 2 months now and its still not better. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I keep playing and re-injuring it.
For those interested in my supermarket trials I think I've found my formula. From now on I think I'm going to do most of my shopping at Gelsons. It's a supermarket in the Paseo Colorado. Up until now I've avoided going there under the assumption that things were more expensive. Well I took my receipts from both Ralphs and Vons and did a price comparison. And low and behold everything I buy either cost the same or is less at Gelsons. I was dumbfounded. One thing I will concede is that while the everyday prices at Gelsons is less, you don't save the money by being a member like you do with Vons and Ralphs Club which can be very significant. Now this is just my shopping list. Maybe other people have had different experiences so don't flame me telling me I'm wrong.
One thing I didn't like at Gelsons was their selection. Its funny because Sandy likes them for their selection but not their prices. Go figure. They didn't have everything I wanted and I didn't like their choice of meats. Now they have a butcher where you can get exactly what you want but for those who know me know I don't like to be bothered with that. If I can't see it in front of me I can't make a decision about it (This is also why its dangerous for me to put food in the refrigerator crisper. I've found month old vegetables before). So I'll probably buy my meat at Vons.
The Sexes and the Importance of Appearance
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Before I start my blog let me state my position on dating. I think anybody should be able to date anybody for whatever reason. I don't think that dating someone because they are good looking is any shallower than dating someone because they are smart, funny, nice, etc. I tend to think that appearance is part of the whole package and who am I to say what criteria someone should look for in someone he or she dates. I know I have to be attracted to the person I am dating. But this isn't to say that I could date a girl if she was dumb, boring, or mean.
With that being said, I read an article today about how scientist have created a robot that can judge how attractive a woman would be to a man. The article goes to to say that it doesn't work in reverse. Why not? Because women tend to take other, non-physical, characteristics into account more than men. At first I agreed with this statement but when I thought about it I am not convinced.
I know LOTS of nice, smart, successful men who do not have girlfriends or have never had girlfriends. I know plenty of guys who are very attractive, but not nearly as nice, smart, etc. and they can't fight off all the women who come their way. If anything, I think my good looking guy friends do much better than my good looking girl friends. Now granted, most of my good looking guy friends are for the most part nice guys and successful in life. The same can be said for my female friends. Being a successful female can in many instances limit the guys you can go out with so this may be a factor. However, I'm not about to buy the fact that women take into consideration a man's physical appearance any less then men take a woman's appearance.
Admittedly I will say guys can be less discriminatory depending on the situation. For instance, a guy is more likely to want a one-night fling than a girl in which case he doesn't really care about her intelligence, job, etc. But the same can be said for girls looking for a one-time fling. I think in the end, when people are looking to settle down, both sexes take into consideration their potential mates appearance equally.
With that being said, I read an article today about how scientist have created a robot that can judge how attractive a woman would be to a man. The article goes to to say that it doesn't work in reverse. Why not? Because women tend to take other, non-physical, characteristics into account more than men. At first I agreed with this statement but when I thought about it I am not convinced.
I know LOTS of nice, smart, successful men who do not have girlfriends or have never had girlfriends. I know plenty of guys who are very attractive, but not nearly as nice, smart, etc. and they can't fight off all the women who come their way. If anything, I think my good looking guy friends do much better than my good looking girl friends. Now granted, most of my good looking guy friends are for the most part nice guys and successful in life. The same can be said for my female friends. Being a successful female can in many instances limit the guys you can go out with so this may be a factor. However, I'm not about to buy the fact that women take into consideration a man's physical appearance any less then men take a woman's appearance.
Admittedly I will say guys can be less discriminatory depending on the situation. For instance, a guy is more likely to want a one-night fling than a girl in which case he doesn't really care about her intelligence, job, etc. But the same can be said for girls looking for a one-time fling. I think in the end, when people are looking to settle down, both sexes take into consideration their potential mates appearance equally.
Women, Just the Way They Are
Thursday, February 06, 2003
Saw something on TV that really rubbed me the wrong way. So I'm a Smallville fan. I guess more accurately, I'm a Kristen Kreuk (Lana Lang) fan.
Well about two weeks ago there was this episode where Lana's old boyfriend ends up being killed. At the very end of the episode she finds Clark. She is crying. Clark tries to comfort her and she ends up telling her how all the important people in her life have left, her parents, her aunt, and now her ex-boyfriend. But Clark, wonderful Clark, has always been there despite the fact that she has accused him of things, she ALWAYS doubts him, and he keeps secrets (namely he's Superman) away from her. She doesn't care if he has secrets and just wants to make sure Clark is always in her life. So to me this should be some turning point where Lana finally stops all that crap and learns to just trust Clark.
Well this week Clark becomes "bad Clark" when exposed to Red Kryptonite. Lana sees Clark kissing her friend Chloe (who also is acting strangely) and Lana just loses it. In the end she finds out her friend had an illness but she knows Clark did not. She is still mad and asks Clark why he kissed Chloe. Clark tries to apologize and says its just one of those things he can't explain. Does Lana remember what she said two weeks ago? Does she just let it go because she realizes Clark always has her best interest at heart? OF COURSE NOT!
THE POINT OF THIS BLOG.
So when I pointed this out to Jenny the other day she summed it all very nicely, "So what?" Jenny pointed out to me that this is what girls do. She's right, and it is pointless to try and make any sense of it.
Well about two weeks ago there was this episode where Lana's old boyfriend ends up being killed. At the very end of the episode she finds Clark. She is crying. Clark tries to comfort her and she ends up telling her how all the important people in her life have left, her parents, her aunt, and now her ex-boyfriend. But Clark, wonderful Clark, has always been there despite the fact that she has accused him of things, she ALWAYS doubts him, and he keeps secrets (namely he's Superman) away from her. She doesn't care if he has secrets and just wants to make sure Clark is always in her life. So to me this should be some turning point where Lana finally stops all that crap and learns to just trust Clark.
Well this week Clark becomes "bad Clark" when exposed to Red Kryptonite. Lana sees Clark kissing her friend Chloe (who also is acting strangely) and Lana just loses it. In the end she finds out her friend had an illness but she knows Clark did not. She is still mad and asks Clark why he kissed Chloe. Clark tries to apologize and says its just one of those things he can't explain. Does Lana remember what she said two weeks ago? Does she just let it go because she realizes Clark always has her best interest at heart? OF COURSE NOT!
THE POINT OF THIS BLOG.
So when I pointed this out to Jenny the other day she summed it all very nicely, "So what?" Jenny pointed out to me that this is what girls do. She's right, and it is pointless to try and make any sense of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)