It’s been a while, about three months, since I completely wrote a CSS file, and even longer since I wrote an xHtml site. Today I began coding the new Weblogs.us front page. I keep making stupid typos which make the entire process irritating at times. Fate has it that today I planned on beginning the coding as JD sends me an e-mail about a forum post from other Weblogs.us members who want to see a new front page. So I gave them something to criticize and critique. I guess I need to make a new logo also, since I have to admit the one I made isn’t the best. So any ideas would be appreciated.

Here is the link: Weblogs.us forums

2 Days Remaining

-John Havlik

[end of transmission, stay tuned]

After reading the complaint that was filed, I feel that the plaintiff is a serious prick, and because of that I will have my own little rebuttal. Yes the ICE does now want us to use MiB and GiB instead of MB and GB when referring to the base two system (binary). The plaintiff fails to acknowledge that the current system, using si prefixes, is actually incorrect as it does not follow the si rules of a strictly base ten system. Therefore when hard drive manufactures claim that a hard drive holds 200GB they mean, in accordance to the si rules, that it equals 200×10^9 bytes, not 200×2^30 bytes which is 200 GiB. Yes the standards should be enforced, but don’t sue hard drive manufactures for adhering to the si standards instead of the incorrect usage. In reality it is every one else’s fault for not changing binary ratings to the MiB/GiB terminology, this includes CDs, Ram and other solid state memories, CPU caches, Video memory, Windows, and just about every other piece of software. The plaintiff incorrectly assumes that the common use of MB and GB are the correct use, which is not true, why do you think DVD media is measured in MB/GB based on the si standards of a base 10 system? I say that everyone else needs to get their buts in gear, on either adding that all important separating ‘i’ or face lawsuits from idiotic consumers.

Today I wish that I hadn’t thrown away the paper insert to the plastic packaging to my 200 GB (I’m referring to the proper si use (200×10^9 bytes)) hard drive, which clearly stated on the package that 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes on the packaging, this is clearly telling the consumer that they are using the si standard, not the common and incorrect usage. Part 56 of the complaint is invalid, and especially since this person is claiming that this problem is only for retail units, not OEM, which carry no such warning since it isn’t printed on the label on the drive cover itself. As for part 57, this is true to an extent since the manufactures to use some slight rounding so that we aren’t buying 200.047001600 GB (base 10) hard drives, which is the case for my drive, and is actually in my favor. And that invalidates part 58 of the claim, since in my case they understated the size of the drive. I have also invalidated part 60-65, I really could have saved WD’s butt on this one, if only I could find that all-important slip of paper-stock.

My last major point is that it is a hard drive industry standard that they use the si base 10 units instead of the incorrect binary usage. As-long-as I remember the hard drive industry has always used the correct si usage for MB/GB, this goes back to 10MB hard drives; so that was way back in the early 90′s, late 80′s. If a consumer doesn’t know this because of their own ignorance, it’s their own fault. Also if they don’t understand this they shouldn’t be purchasing computer storage products anyways, they should pay someone to do it for them who actually possess half a brain. To further rub this in, I have had numerous clients that know the exact same thing as I do about the rated capacities and factor that in, though it really doesn’t matter since every manufacturer uses the same rating system, unlike intel and AMD, so you can compare apples with apples, the exact opposite of what the plaintiff claims.

It looks like WD agrees with me, but it looks like they are settling out of court to get the person to shut up. Though they are admitting to not advertising that they use the proper use of GB and MB on their packaging, which I know they had done when I purchased my drive.

Here is the link: Western Digital’s brief ISO preliminary approval (HTML, Secure Connection)

Here is the link: Plaintiff’s Compalaint (PDF, Secure Connection)

-John Havlik

[end of transmission, stay tuned]

Today Western Digital e-mailed me about an impending class action lawsuit that is trying to change the way hard disk manufacturers market their drives. If Western Digital looses the case, Orin Safier v. Western Digital Corporation, I am entitled to free hard drive back-up and recovery software from Western Digital. What seems odd is why software for a flawed marketing technique that all hard drive manufactures use? Anyone who purchased an “aftermarket” (AKA retail) hard drive from March 22, 2001 to February 15, 2006 is entitled to this settlement if WDC looses the case. That means my WD2000JB hard drive qualifies.

Inorder to receive the e-mail you must have a qualifying product which is registered. I need to find my serial number to confirm the claim, though this may be a good thing since even though it seems that this is valid, and I do trust Western Digital. But, thunderbird did think that it may be a phishing scheme, so I tried an https connection to the site, which did work, I also tried the URL on their other domain name ant it worked again, so I believe it should be a valid event. Besides what worth are hard drive serial numbers anyways? Especially since all my drives are registered to my account. This page is not linked to in their site for some reason, which it should be, so this is the main reason I think it could be a phishing program candidate.

Here’s the link: Western Digital Settlement Information (HTML, Secure Connection)

5 Days Remaining

-John Havlik

[end of transmission, stay tuned]