Is Canonical Becoming The New Microsoft?
Amedee Van Gasse (ub)
amedee-ubuntu at amedee.be
Fri Feb 12 10:19:55 GMT 2010
On Fri, February 12, 2010 01:15, Ari Torhamo wrote:
> to, 2010-02-11 kello 19:45 +0530, Manish Sinha kirjoitti:
>> Ari Torhamo wrote:
>> > ke, 2010-02-10 kello 21:00 +0530, Manish Sinha kirjoitti:
>> > "Billions"? You ask others not to overreact, but present such hugely
>> > exaggerated numbers yourself. Also, "have you contributed a single
>> > to "x" yourself" is generally one of the lousiest argument you can
>> > against criticizm on anything - especially when you don't know how
>> > (money, time, effort) the one who's criticizing has contributed to the
>> > project.
>> By billions, I am not giving you exact stats, just to say that they have
>> spent a lot. I hoped people got the metaphor.
> This is not called a metaphor in English, it's called false information.
> No one is asking for "exact stats" either, but if you use numbers to
> support your case, it would be nice to try to get them right even within
> an order of magnitude.
Call me an autist of you want, but "billions" isn't even an exact number.
The interpretation depends if you live in a long scale or short scale
country. For me a billion is 10^12 (a million million, 10^6 * 10^6 or
10^6^2, hence the prefix "bi") but for some people it is 10^9 (a thousand
We're all computer geeks here, why don't we use scientific notation? 1e9
for a milliard (or billion) and 1e12 for a billion (or trillion). Or giga
(1e9, milliard) and tera (1e12, billion).
More information about the sounder