5 ms·
Ten TRILLION bytes... It's okay, Nature, the word terabyte doesn't scare people and is indeed now part of common parlance...
by thomasjames 13y ago
Ten TRILLION bytes...
It's okay, Nature, the word terabyte doesn't scare people and is indeed now part of common parlance...
- andyhmltn 13y agoRoughly 9.09495TB for anybody interested
- Pxtl 13y agoNow you've done it, this thread is going to collapse into a binary-vs-metric data measurement flamewar.
- andyhmltn 13y agoOh dear.. blame Google, not me!
- rangibaby 13y agoMetric won that war ;-) http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte
- Dylan16807 13y agoWikipedia is not a source~
- SatvikBeri 13y agoFor proof that Wikipedia is more accurate than other encyclopedias, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia (Though seriously, Wikipedia is about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, at least for science articles: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a...)
- Dylan16807 13y agoThat applies well to en.wikipedia.org, not as much to simple.wikipedia.org. See my reply to andyhmltn about how the properly researched page disagrees with the grandparent's link. Don't trust a wikipedia page that has zero citations.
- Helianthus 13y agoFlamewar: success! Pxtl wins!
- Dylan16807 13y agoEven though it's an argument about wikipedia and nobody has discussed the actual measurement system?
- Helianthus 13y agoEh, point. I count any thread with a buried comment (like yours) as a flamewar, is all ;)
- SatvikBeri 13y agoThese are good points and it would be quite helpful if you put them in the comment next time. "The simple english wikipedia page has these specific flaws" is substantially more accurate and informative than "Wikipedia is not a source."
- Dylan16807 13y agoWell, if you want to know, my original objection was toward using Wikipedia as the arbiter of correct stance on a political issue. Wikipedia itself tries to keep politics out, and for good reason with the way online communities can groupthink. Clearly I should have expanded on that in the first comment. I was not aware at that time that Wikipedia actually contradicted itself, but that was a very easy way to demonstrate my point in a followup post. But the particular flaws in that article were never my main point.
- andyhmltn 13y agoI dislike when people say this. No Wikipedia in itself is not a source, but it's usually an aggregate of sources. If you scroll to the bottom of the article, if it's properly labelled up you can find the exact sources for everything said.
- Dylan16807 13y agoI scrolled to the bottom. The page had no sources. Then I went to the main English wikipedia page to get some sources, but apparently it completely disagrees with the simple English page. The real megabyte page says that it has multiple meanings, and the mebibyte page says that "it was designed to replace the megabyte" and that "it is not commonly used". And I'll assume the sources listed are suitable for the moment.
- glhaynes 13y agoWonder if it would have without this comment.
- lucian1900 13y agoActually that's in TiB. TB is metric.
- bane 13y agoor about $300 worth of Hard Drives at Costco
- lifeisstillgood 13y agoYeah but Ten Trillion Bytes sounds a lot bigger than 9 TB.
- andyhmltn 13y agoI think that's the intention. Regardless of how you look at it however: It's still really impressive
- feelthepain 13y agoApologies (one of Nature's editors here). Believe it or not it was in terabytes when we sent the copy to our sub-editors (ie copy editors) and they changed it because they thought our readers wouldn't get it. We're as bemused as you.