Starting a fighting game

[Glenn]

contested, i.e., that you've read something misleading and you've decided to worship it. I've already proven my point, as you did. I don't think things can be any simpler than what you've already said. You yourself multiplied a segment by 16 to get the number of bytes in it. Address the factual issues that have already been raised instead of falling in love with some nonsense you've read. You yourself have made it clear that your documentation's definition of a segment does not work for converting segments to bytes. Go with the facts that *you* know work! Forget the theoretical rubbish that doesn't have anything to do with what memory segments and offsets are used for. (Would you convert meters to centimeters by multiplying the meters by 10 simply because there are 10 millimeters in a centimeter--and not by 100 because there are 100 centimeters in a meter?)

And to possibly (but I doubt it) explain the importance of taking the context into account, here's a quote from the article you're in love with:

"there is a new segment each 16 bytes, but they measure 64Kb. "

You see that "there is a new segment each 16 bytes"? Bingo! *Think*. (If *that* doesn't mean that there are 16 bytes per segment, there's something seriously wrong with the English/American language.) That "but they meaure 64Kb" only applies if you need them to "measure" 64 KB. There's nothing magical about the 64 KB. It's just a definition of convenience he makes for his purposes. If he wants to think of a segment as the *beginning* of a 64 KB window, he's free to do that. And as I said, that can be a useful thing to do. But also as I said, it doesn't detract from a segment itself referring to 16 bytes. (I seem to be repeating myself.)