Watch what you ingest

A bit of a Byte?

This was going to be my first post. However, Blogger's date format had to be addressed while it came up and could not be resisted.

Here's a little test.

Do you know the difference between the usage of these measurements?

1. kB
2. Kb
3. kb
4. KB

It is a bit (pun intended) of a trick question.

There are sloppy use of these measurements all over the Internet, printed publications, etc. and not just by those who should be "in the know". Many of those people being in the Information Technology (IT) industry.

If we as a species are to become living in a digitally exposed environment, we all need to know some basics of digital measurement.

Getting back to the trick question. They are just letters, right? True. However, when used in the context of measurement, they take on a whole new meaning. The "k" or "K" prefix, refers to, as many already know, for "kilo" or one thousand (1 000). For more detail see binary prefix.

Accordingly, there is no difference between the upper case "K" and the lower case "k". My argument starts with that there is. The correct nomenclature of the standard is somewhat inconsistent. If you take a few moments, there is a pattern that emerges, although inconsistently. All of the fractions are lower case. Most of the whole numbers are upper case. This is the start of my proposal to only use upper case for the whole numbers, also since technically you can not have any thing smaller than zero for computing measurement. There's just nothing smaller than zero on a computer. For example, you cannot have a "mb" (milli-bit), but you can have a "Mb" (Mega-bit). Again, "PB" (Peta-Byte) exist, and "pB" (pico-Byte) do not. Look out for zepto/Zetta and yocto/Yotta, too. When the need arises to go beyond 10 to the 24th power (10^24), more lower case/Upper Case combinations will likely emerge.

Is there a difference between "k" and "K"? No. But there should be. And with that at hand, I propose only to use "K". From hereon, that's what I will do.

Now we move onto "b" and "B". Here there is a big span. Bits are either on or off, 1 (one) or 0 (zero) to a computer. Bytes are 8 (eight) bits. And to differentiate, a bit is always a lower case "b" and a byte is always upper case "B" when represented in a single letter.

Generally:
bit = used for the measurement of data communication / transmission
byte = used for the measurement of data storage

Hard drives, floppy disks (for those that remember them), USB drives, CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, even MP3 players are all storage mediums are represented in Bytes: 500MB hard drive, 1.44MB disk drive, 1GB USB drive, 640MB CD-ROM, 4.7GB DVD-ROM, and so on.

Networks are represented with bits. Your DSL, cable modem connection, office network, modem (remember those long-past days of waiting), cell phone networks, etc. are all shown in bits per second (or bps or b/s): as in 56Kbs, 1.5Mb/s, 100Mbs, etal.

What did you guess in the quiz? Did the "k" or "K" matter? Was the "b" it a bit or a byte?

The answers are:

1. kB = should be avoided
   
2. Kb = Kilo-bit
3. kb = also should be avoided
4. KB = Kilo-Byte
   

Curious how one element can make something big into something small.

Dubs or Subs?

I vehemently abhor dubbing!

Recently have seen two films, while both in languages that I do not understand, there are times when I can. When there is understanding of the language spoken, I sometimes notice there is translation that could use improvement, and others where the translation is dead on.

There are even times, when in possession of a television, flipping through the channels would end up watching something for a period of time only to realize it's in another language than English.

Dubbing:

• Wikipedia Dubbing article
  
• Places someone else's voice so loudly over the original speaker that you can't hear that person.
• You have to rely on the translator's word, unless you can read lips in that language. That also presumes that the person remains in view.
• Makes it difficult to get the original speaker's voice back on film if they have died, are difficult to reach, etc. if their original voice recording was lost.
• Is generally rude. It's like speaking louder at the same time someone else is. Or even more inconsiderate, speaking while someone else is in another language that does not understand you.
  
• Also, it's insulting to the original speaker. They lose their "voice" on film.
• Would confuse a hearing impaired person if they do not read lips in that language.
  

Sub-Titling:

• Wikipedia Subtitle article
  
• Allow you to read the sub-titles OR listen to the speaker if you understand that language.
• Are great when there are multiple languages in a film, and you may not understand them all.
• Can be turned off.
• Is great to learn a new language.
• Can be replaced with an improved version of an existing translation.
• Can be replaced with additional translations as they come along for other languages.
• Supports the hearing impaired.
  

Support and promote sub-titles!

Consistency and the Order of Time

Perfectly brilliant. In the creation process of this blog, there are already shown reasons of why this blog was to be born.

It all begins with consistency.

Case in point...

Here are the choices for formatting dates of the "Date Header Format":

Notice first of all that all of the selections are a bit scattered. By this I mean that there is a lack of order.

Second, get rid of the duplicate entries: "Saturday, June 14, 2008" (third and fifth items from top) and "June 14, 2008" (second and fourteenth items from top). Leaving 14 of 16 original items.

Third criticism is to avoid non-referential dating formats. Those being the plain "Saturday" and "Saturday, June 14". For the latter, how many times have you looked for an article on the Internet to find the date "Monday," or "November 11," or "Thursday March 3"? What year is that article supposed to be? As for just placing the day, as in "Wednesday"...day number? month? year? Leaving 12 of 16 original items. So, with that, these will be omitted from the following re-ordering of the list selection of date formats.

After elimination of the duplicates and non-referential dates, the original list results in 12 items:
Jun 14, 2008
June 14, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
6/14/08
6/14/2008
6.14.2008
20080614
2008/06/14
2008-06-14
14.6.08
14 June 2008
14 June, 2008

Now on to the beginning of making orderly sense of selecting an item from the list of different date formats.

One means of creating order would be from short (top) to long (bottom):
6/14/08
14.6.08
6/14/2008
6.14.2008
20080614
2008/06/14
2008-06-14
Jun 14, 2008
June 14, 2008
14 June 2008
14 June, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008

Another would be from a common usage order, which is partially followed by the example shown. Here is my interpretation from common (within the United States of America) to more unconventional (more international):
Jun 14, 2008
June 14, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
6/14/08
6/14/2008
6.14.2008
20080614
2008/06/14
2008-06-14
14.6.08
14 June 2008
14 June, 2008

Notice that the above list is what Blogger represents the closest, with slight exception on 1st item.

But, then some people may become confused by date formatting uncommon to them, as presented above. So, here is an attempt at keeping all the different dating formats together:
Jun 14, 2008
June 14, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
6/14/08
6/14/2008
6.14.2008
20080614
2008/06/14
2008-06-14
14.6.08
14 June 2008
14 June, 2008

Another useful element to add is a separator in the pull-down menu making an quicker selection, along with descriptions of groupings in [square brackets]:
Jun 14, 2008 [month day year with words]
June 14, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
— [Disputable whether this would be included or not. For the example of clarity, included.]
6/14/08 [month day year with only numbers]
6/14/2008
6.14.2008
—
20080614 [year month day]
2008/06/14
2008-06-14
—
14.6.08 [day month year]
14 June 2008
14 June, 2008

Well, to make matters even more confusing Blogger has this more extensive list for its "Comments Timestamp Format":

Saturday, June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM PDT
June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM PDT
June 14, 2008 6:10 PM
June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM
6:10:37 PM
6:10 PM
6/14/08 6:10 PM
6/14/2008 6:10 PM
6/14/2008 6:10:37 PM
6/14/2008
6:10 PM
6:10 PM PDT
6:10 PM, June 14, 2008
6:10:37 PM
18:10
June 14, 2008
June 14, 2008 6:10 PM
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM PDT
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM 2008
14.06.08
14/6/08
14/6/08 18:10
14/6/08 6:10 PM
Saturday, 14 June, 2008
14 June, 2008 18:10
14 June, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008

Again, there are duplicates, reducing the original count of 30 down to 26:
Saturday, June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM PDT
June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM PDT
June 14, 2008 6:10 PM
June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM
6:10:37 PM
6:10 PM
6/14/08 6:10 PM
6/14/2008 6:10 PM
6/14/2008 6:10:37 PM
6/14/2008
6:10 PM PDT
6:10 PM, June 14, 2008
18:10
June 14, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM PDT
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM 2008
14.06.08
14/6/08
14/6/08 18:10
14/6/08 6:10 PM
Saturday, 14 June, 2008
14 June, 2008 18:10
14 June, 2008

Thing is with duplicates. It is generally termed as messy or sloppy programming, it also slows the server down since it has to process more information and then send it out over the Internet to your browser.

A note about servers: the more it has to process, the longer it will take for the next batch of information processed. When this is, say, a million (1,000,000) times repeated even 1 millisecond (.001 second) results (1,000,000 * .001) in 1,000 seconds (or 16.66 minutes). Thus, saving processing time is invaluable.

What tends to be disturbing is that there are items on both lists ("Date Header Format" and "Comments Timestamp Format") that are not contained in the other. Consistency.

Before lengthening this blog post, a mention of why I prefer this date format:
2008-06-14 18:10
2008-06-14 Saturday 18:10
2008-06-14 18:10:37
2008-06-14 Saturday 18:10:37
It just makes sense, pure and simple. Begin (from left-to-right) with the item that encapsulates all the other details. You can describe seconds in a year (seconds * minutes * hours * days * months), but not years in a second unless you want to describe a really long fraction that probably only mathematicians will appreciate. Another way to describe the order: year has months and in turn days within hours encompassing minutes and finally seconds. Here's the numerical format description:
year-month-day (day) hour:minute:second

Another benefit to this particular formatting, is that it can be easily sorted (by a computer). It is also consistent by always using 2 numerical digits for the month and hour. The other thing that most people from the U.S.A. will complain about is the use of 24 hours in the hour. Really, what time is it when you say, "It's 9"? Is it 9am, or 9pm? Or without explanation: It is 21:00. You can tell the day is near end since it is approaching 24:00/00:00, as in 24 hours in a day.

Personally, most of the other formats are just confusing.

Finally, combining the "Date Header Format" and "Comments Timestamp Format" duplicate trimmed lists, non-referential dating formats, and adding the newly mentioned formats produces our comprehensive list:
6:10 PM, June 14, 2008 [time month day year]
—
6/14/08 [month day year with only numbers time]
6/14/08 6:10 PM
6/14/2008
6/14/2008 6:10 PM
6/14/2008 6:10:37 PM
6.14.2008
—
June 14, 2008 [month day year with words time]
June 14, 2008 6:10 PM
June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM
June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM PDT
—
Saturday, June 14, 2008 [day month day year with words time]
Saturday, June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM
Saturday, June 14, 2008 6:10:37 PM PDT
—
14/6/08 [day month year with only numbers time]
14/6/08 18:10
14/6/08 6:10 PM
14.06.08
—
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM [day month day with abbreviated words time]
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM PDT
Sat Jun 14, 06:10:37 PM 2008
—
14 June 2008 [(day) day month year with words]
14 June, 2008
14 June, 2008 18:10
Saturday, 14 June, 2008
—
20080614 [year month day (day) time]
2008/06/14
2008-06-14
2008-06-14 18:10
2008-06-14 Saturday 18:10
2008-06-14 18:10:37
2008-06-14 Saturday 18:10:37