>> I've sometimes used "decimal" and "binary" as adjectives instead,
>> but I prefer "metric gigabytes" because then I can oppose it to
>> "real gigabytes".
> I object to that terminology on the grounds that it suggests that the
> metric system is somehow not real.  You are also confusing the
> decimal prefixes with the metric unit system: the metric and the
> decimal are orthogonal concepts.

Both are entirely true, as far as they go.  To put it briefly, in doing
this I am ignoring technical inaccuracies for the sake of mounting a
social attack on a social problem.

The first part of this is that the metric system is associated with
powers-of-ten *in practice* strongly enough that, at least in the USA,
`metric' carries a strong `decimal' connotation.

The second part is that in the USA (and to a lesser extent elsewhere in
North America), the metric system suffers from a negative prejudice,
which I am capitalizing on by contagion.  In other words, you have
causality backwards: I do this _because_ the metric system is viewed as
`not real' (by my target), not _to produce_ such a view.

While I realize that (most of) the rest of the world does not share
this prejudice - I certainly don't - I am attempting to attack the
problem in the USA both (a) because I can do so more easily there
(because of the above) and (b) because it is the .3632-tonne gorilla of
terminology in this respect.

11,757,882,852.1 attoparsecs		der Mouse
per microfortnight.
It's not just a good idea.     mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
It's the law.	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B