> They probably confused that with GB. Completely understandable, given the fact that Wired Magazine is after all, pretty new to all this computing and technol

> They probably confused that with GB. Completely understandable, given the fact that Wired Magazine is after all, pretty new to all this computing and technology business ... /s I can't imagine any (tech-savvy) editor proofreading this not going "wait what, terabytes, really??" -- which is then presumably their job to doublecheck.