From BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu Sun Dec 18 17:32:44 1994 Return-Path: Received: from WVNVM.WVNET.EDU by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) for /com/archive/cube-lovers id AA17736; Sun, 18 Dec 94 17:32:44 EST Message-Id: <9412182232.AA17736@life.ai.mit.edu> Received: from WVNVM.WVNET.EDU by WVNVM.WVNET.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8903; Sun, 18 Dec 94 17:32:41 EST Received: from WVNVM.WVNET.EDU (NJE origin BRYAN@WVNVM) by WVNVM.WVNET.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5951; Sun, 18 Dec 1994 17:32:41 -0500 X-Acknowledge-To: Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 17:32:40 EST From: "Jerry Bryan" To: "Cube Lovers List" Subject: Re: How Big is Big? In-Reply-To: Message of 12/18/94 at 15:56:10 from , mouse@collatz.mcrcim.mcgill.edu On 12/18/94 at 15:56:10 der Mouse said: >> [Physicists] are planning soon to start sending petabytes (10^15) >> over the Internet. 10^15 is getting interesting close to the size of >> Rubik's cube (never mind that I thought that the proper term for >> 10^15 bytes was terabytes.) >I thought it was > kilo 10^3 > mega 10^6 > giga 10^9 > tera 10^12 > peta 10^15 > exa 10^18 You are correct, of course. In retrospect, the aspect of the article in the Chronicle that waylaid me (and which I still find puzzling) is the absence of any mention of "tera". It is a giant jump from "giga" to "peta", skipping "tera" on the way. But "giga" and "peta" were juxtaposed in the article. I have known how big "tera" is for years -- can't believe I screwed it up. It makes me wonder if the article had it right. It is reasonable to jump from gigabytes to petabytes in one fell swoop? = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Robert G. Bryan (Jerry Bryan) (304) 293-5192 Associate Director, WVNET (304) 293-5540 fax 837 Chestnut Ridge Road BRYAN@WVNVM Morgantown, WV 26505 BRYAN@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU