What you're missing is that a multiple is not the same thing as a power. 24 is a multiple of 8, it is not a power of two. 1000000 bytes is 8000000 bits. 1000000 bits is 125000 bytes. None of that has anything to do with a power of two. What point are you trying to make?

There is nothing magical about 512 or 4096 byte sector sizes. Those are strictly a convention used by certain operating systems. The same disks that have 512 byte sectors when used on Linux can have 520 byte sectors when used on OS/400. Mainframe ECKD disks don't have sectors at all, they have tracks and records, and a record can be any size at all.

And even if the 512 byte sectors meant something important, all that would mean is that disk sizes would be multiples of 512, not powers of two. So a '1 meg' disk would actually be 1000488 bytes, which is far closer than the 1048576 bytes you get when saying 'meg' is defined as a power of two. A '1 terabyte' disk would be exactly 1000000000000 terabytes vs the 1099511627776 bytes you get using power-of-two.

None of what you are talking about has anything to do with what I said. I am talking about the measurement of things, not the things themselves.

Memory components are power-of-two boundaries in size. This is necessary because if they were other than a power-of-two in size, math would have to be performed on each memory access. For instance, if you had memory chips that were 1000 bytes in size, and you wanted to access byte 1024, you would have to perform a calculation to find that the byte is at location 24 in the second chip. With binary sizes however, all you need to do is use the address lines to directly access the correct location in the correct chip. Also note that the word-size of the data does not matter: you could return 1 bit, 8 bits, 10 bits, anything at all. What matters is that the number of 'things' (whatever size of the 'thing' itself is) is always a power of two.

Network speeds are not dependant in the slightest on a power-of-two, regardless of the data being transported. There is absolutely no reason to say that a network that can transfer 1024 bits per second is in any way better or more natural than one that can transfer 1000 bps or one that can transfer 1100 bps. There is no reason to assume that a 'kilobit per second' is anything other than 1000 bps. And if you change the measurement to count bytes instead of bits, a network can transfer 137.5 Bps as easily as it can transfer 1100 bps, or 1.1Kbps.

Hard disk sizes are like network speeds: there is no inherent power-of-two to their size. There is no reason why a disk could not be made to hold exactly 1000000 bytes (excluding the fact that you would have a partial sector). Therefore, trying to force some power-of-two based prefix on those sizes is just silly.

I can't imagine how I have been getting my work done for all these years without using Google Earth. I guess if you are in a job where Google Earth is required then you would not be running the same desktop I am.

Red Hat has a desktop version of RHEL, with the same support cycle.

Aside from our own applications, and the stuff provided on EPEL (which is permitted), what is missing from the Red Hat repos that would be required in a corporate environment?

Really? Go to redhat.com and click on 'products'. First thing displayed is 'Red Hat Enterprise Linux - DESKTOP'.

My company has deployed thousands of laptops with RHEL desktop on them.

It's not really hardware vs software, it is memory vs other stuff.

Memory makes sense to measure in powers of two, because then you can split up the addressing as 'x bits for row select, x bits for column select, x bits for chip select, x bits for DIMM select', etc. Every component of that address (except the very highest level, eg number of DIMMs) is going to be a power of two in size. When the minimum size you could purchase was 1024 bytes, it made sense to be use a well-known prefix that was close to that size. It no longer makes sense.

Disks, network speeds, etc have no such 'binary' component. There is absolutely no reason that those things should be counted in binary.

So you're claiming Amazon got the right to sell these ebooks from the publisher for $0? Fascinating. I wonder how the publishers and authors planned to make any money like that.

Or maybe the publishers sold the books to Amazon from some non-zero price. That price would of course be a COST to Amazon, and if they sold the books to their customers for less than that amount then they sold them below cost.

Well, I am not a gmail user for precisely this reason.

Also, Google is not scanning for ads in order to provide you with free email service, they are providing free email service in order to be able to show you ads. The 'free email' is just a cost of doing business - the selling of ads is worth much more than that expense.

The big difference between scanning for spam and scanning to place ads is that scanning for spam benefits me, and scanning for ads is for Google's benefit.

I guess that is why when we ship something that is sensitive enough to require a shockwatch there is a giant 'check shockwatch before accepting' printed on the box. Seems a hell of a lot easier than some bluetooth device. Plus, has the added benefit that every point in the delivery chain can make sure they are getting an undamaged package, and the presence of the shockwatch and warning will probably cause handlers to be more careful.

If you are just trying to see if handlers have abused your package (not sure what value that would be) a device hidden inside the package makes sense. If you are more concerned about your package being delivered undamaged, a device and warning on the outside makes more sense.

You just repeated what the other guy said, and it is still wrong. There is no `statement of noninfringement` in a counter notice, just a statement that you believe the material was removed by mistake or misidentification. `By mistake or misidentification` does not mean `I think this is not infringing, therefore it was a mistake to delete it`, it means that you believe the person who filed the notice made a mistake or misidentification when they said the work was theirs.

The person making the notice says, under penalty of perjury, that he believes the work is his. The person making the counter notice says, under penalty of perjury, that he believes the work is not what the notice says it is.

Now, if you think that your use of a work should be fair use and you send a counter notice saying the work was taken down because of a mistake or misidentification (the only option there is), then you would be liable for perjury, because you said you believe the work was misidentified when actually you know it was identified correctly, but you feel you are allowed to use it. That is not being held l Iiable for saying it was noninfringing, it is being held liable because you lied.

Eh, what? Exactly where in the law does it says that 'falsely claiming to not infringe is punishable as perjury'? Nowhere. The only thing punishable by perjury is if, in bad faith, you state that the material is not what the person filing the notice says it was. How exactly is that a 'higher standard' than making the person filing the notice state that they are authorized to represent the work?

What exactly are the 'things you can do in a notice that you can't do in a counter notice' that would be perjury in the counter notice but not in the notice?

Both takedown notices and counter-notices are already made under penalty of perjury. Since you can't be bothered to educate yourself:

Under Elements of Notification

Under Contents of Counter Notification

Penalties (criminal and civil) are identical in each case.