From mouse@collatz.mcrcim.mcgill.edu Mon Dec 19 03:55:27 1994 Return-Path: Received: from Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) for /com/archive/cube-lovers id AA07255; Mon, 19 Dec 94 03:55:27 EST Received: (root@localhost) by 15068 on Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU (8.6.8.1 Mouse 1.0) id DAA15068 for cube-lovers@ai.mit.edu; Mon, 19 Dec 1994 03:49:19 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 03:49:19 -0500 From: der Mouse Message-Id: <199412190849.DAA15068@Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> To: cube-lovers@ai.mit.edu Subject: Re: How Big is Big? > 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. [...] It makes me wonder if the article had it right. > It is reasonable to jump from gigabytes to petabytes in one fell > swoop? IMO it is not. Without seeing it, I can't be sure, but it seems likely that it's Just Another Dumb Reporter. Perhaps someone took notes and wrote down 10^15 instead of 10^12, and then looked up the name for 10^15 and didn't notice the basic inconsistency of jumping from Gb to Pb without stopping at Tb. Hmmm, this is drifting off-topic for cube-lovers.... der Mouse mouse@collatz.mcrcim.mcgill.edu