the G sides

Wayne and I are having a little…well, a little discussion over my use of 2k5 to give the year instead of 2005.

Wayne wrote:

Just so you know – the 2k5 stuff drives me nuts – technically you should be typing 2.005k at which point it’s just easier to type 2005.

Grant wrote:

wait a minute…..why wouldn’t it be 2k5? a k is a thousand….so is 2 thousand 5…which makes sense.

what the heck is 2.005k….that’s 2 and 5 thousandths….that makes no sense. and the point isn’t what is EASIER – that is so thinking like an engineer…

The point is what is COOLER…more RIGHT BRAINED, if you will…a subject in which you struggle mightily with.

Wayne wrote:

Yes, if you are writing checks you would write two thousand five for 2005, but you would not write 2 thousand 5.

“k�? or “kilo�? is a prefix multiplier meaning 10 raised to the third power (which equals 1000). So, when you say 2.005k you are saying 2.005 x 1000 = 2005. Just like 2.5 kB is 2500 Bytes or 2.5×1000.

Got it?

I have no problem with being right brained – as long as you are technically accurate.

Grant wrote:

Listen, we are not talking about bytes or writing checks. I’m willing to accept a check from you if wish for 2 thousand 5, but we are talking about dates.

Which of course might be another foreign concept for you…(How exactly did you woo Amy G anyway…I mean, she’s really pretty.)

Plus the fact that 2k5 looks better, sounds better, and writes better should override the engineer’s desire to be technically accurate.