<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Seagate owners to get 5% refund on HDDs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/10/27/seagate-owners-to-get-5-refund-on-hdds/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/10/27/seagate-owners-to-get-5-refund-on-hdds/</link>
	<description>Gadgets, gear and computer hardware.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:55:27 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/10/27/seagate-owners-to-get-5-refund-on-hdds/comment-page-1/#comment-502611</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:55:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crunchgear.com/2007/10/27/seagate-owners-to-get-5-refund-on-hdds/#comment-502611</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s make a deal: As soon as bullshit gets you to the moon, we can safely scrap the nonsense called science.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s make a deal: As soon as bullshit gets you to the moon, we can safely scrap the nonsense called science.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: techie</title>
		<link>http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/10/27/seagate-owners-to-get-5-refund-on-hdds/comment-page-1/#comment-501920</link>
		<dc:creator>techie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:19:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crunchgear.com/2007/10/27/seagate-owners-to-get-5-refund-on-hdds/#comment-501920</guid>
		<description>manu&#039;s like seagate and western digital use /1000 (aka Scientific) rates when calculating 1 GB. This is because they are insane, but all other media has always been like this due to the fact that not all system&#039;s use /1024 as a standard depending on the FS. IMO i think its safe to stop the BS and use /1024 screw the &quot;scientific&quot; numbering</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>manu&#8217;s like seagate and western digital use /1000 (aka Scientific) rates when calculating 1 GB. This is because they are insane, but all other media has always been like this due to the fact that not all system&#8217;s use /1024 as a standard depending on the FS. IMO i think its safe to stop the BS and use /1024 screw the &#8220;scientific&#8221; numbering</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/10/27/seagate-owners-to-get-5-refund-on-hdds/comment-page-1/#comment-500770</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:37:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crunchgear.com/2007/10/27/seagate-owners-to-get-5-refund-on-hdds/#comment-500770</guid>
		<description>giga = 10^9
mega = 10^6
kilo = 10^3

These definitions are domain-independent and much older than any computer. There are international standards for this. The so-called harddrive vendor conspiracy is an urban legend. HDDs were always sold using the correct meanings of megabyte and gigabyte, same goes for DVDs, tapes, BluRay disks. Likewise, 1 Mbit is 1000000 bit, 1 kHz is 1000 Hz. The use of K (pronounced kay not kilo) as 1024 was always meant as an approximation and used for convenience in low-level programming but it&#039;s completely irrelevant for high-level use and especially for end-users.

In the US legal system, every party has to pay for their costs. So even if you are innocent, you might end up with a huge bill especially as lawyer costs are calculated depending on what&#039;s at stake. So it&#039;s often economically smart to give in and pay some peanuts instead of risking the increased costs. Also in this case, Seagate would clearly suffer by winning the case unless they pay the losers bill too. Just to repeat, they did not lose the case, there was no decision by any judge, Seagate agreed to a settlement. It&#039;s pretty unfair anyway because Seagate does not label their disks any different than any other vendors like IBM, Western Digital, Hitachi, Samsung etc. and to repeat all of them label disks correctly. Sue Microsoft, Apple and whoever if you have a problem with their software displaying incorrect information.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>giga = 10^9<br />
mega = 10^6<br />
kilo = 10^3</p>
<p>These definitions are domain-independent and much older than any computer. There are international standards for this. The so-called harddrive vendor conspiracy is an urban legend. HDDs were always sold using the correct meanings of megabyte and gigabyte, same goes for DVDs, tapes, BluRay disks. Likewise, 1 Mbit is 1000000 bit, 1 kHz is 1000 Hz. The use of K (pronounced kay not kilo) as 1024 was always meant as an approximation and used for convenience in low-level programming but it&#8217;s completely irrelevant for high-level use and especially for end-users.</p>
<p>In the US legal system, every party has to pay for their costs. So even if you are innocent, you might end up with a huge bill especially as lawyer costs are calculated depending on what&#8217;s at stake. So it&#8217;s often economically smart to give in and pay some peanuts instead of risking the increased costs. Also in this case, Seagate would clearly suffer by winning the case unless they pay the losers bill too. Just to repeat, they did not lose the case, there was no decision by any judge, Seagate agreed to a settlement. It&#8217;s pretty unfair anyway because Seagate does not label their disks any different than any other vendors like IBM, Western Digital, Hitachi, Samsung etc. and to repeat all of them label disks correctly. Sue Microsoft, Apple and whoever if you have a problem with their software displaying incorrect information.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Hickey</title>
		<link>http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/10/27/seagate-owners-to-get-5-refund-on-hdds/comment-page-1/#comment-499249</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Hickey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2007 03:23:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crunchgear.com/2007/10/27/seagate-owners-to-get-5-refund-on-hdds/#comment-499249</guid>
		<description>Heh. Yes, hans, but we&#039;re not even going to go there. That&#039;s a whole different can of poo.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heh. Yes, hans, but we&#8217;re not even going to go there. That&#8217;s a whole different can of poo.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hans</title>
		<link>http://www.crunchgear.com/2007/10/27/seagate-owners-to-get-5-refund-on-hdds/comment-page-1/#comment-498701</link>
		<dc:creator>Hans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:01:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crunchgear.com/2007/10/27/seagate-owners-to-get-5-refund-on-hdds/#comment-498701</guid>
		<description>Except when talking about bandwidth, in which case a Gb is 1,000 Mb.  But who really cares?  (Other than, apparently, class action lawyers).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Except when talking about bandwidth, in which case a Gb is 1,000 Mb.  But who really cares?  (Other than, apparently, class action lawyers).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
