yobibyte.
That's a big number
To get my head round it, I recently did some math to put it in
context. My head is too frazzled to reproduce the proof on
a Monday morning, but within reasonable tolerences:
If you were to store a yobibite of data on modern laptop drives,
(say 70Gb capacity - that
Andrew Beattie said:
On the other hand, if you were somehow able to store a byte
of information in a single molecule, then you could store
a yobibyte in a single cup of really hot tea.
The problem would then become one of how you could use your laptop without
spilling some of your data and
At 11:31 04/07/03 +0100, Peter Haworth wrote:
Come to think of it, why aren't zetta and yotta the other way round?
That way you'd at least get (e)x y z at the end, which would make some
kind of sense.
Cause zetta and yotta are greek letters and that is the order they come in
the greek alphabet?
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:56:04AM +0100, Alex McLintock wrote:
Cause zetta and yotta are greek letters and that is the order they come in
the greek alphabet?
At least that is what my greek teacher told me.
http://www.ibiblio.org/koine/greek/lessons/alphabet.html
He was, as you see, lying.
R
Peter Haworth said:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:28:07 -0400, muppet wrote:
kbyte 1024 byte
megabyte 1024 kbyte
gigabyte 1024 megabyte
+terabyte1024 gigabyte
+petabyte1024 terabyte
+exabyte 1024 petabyte
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 11:31:46AM +0100, Peter Haworth wrote:
megabyte 1024 kbyte
gigabyte 1024 megabyte
+terabyte 1024 gigabyte
+petabyte 1024 terabyte
+exabyte1024 petabyte
+zettabyte 1024 exabyte
+yottabyte
Steve Mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roger Horne wrote:
On Fri 27 Jun, Philip Newton wrote:
You have: cwt
You want:
Definition: hundredweight = 100 pounds = 45.359237 kg
which sounds as if it *is* 100 somethings.
But is wrong. There are 112 pounds in a hundredweight (or were when
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Tom Hukins wrote:
I wonder what the value should be for a trilobyte.
/me, impressed by this riff, tries to pick up from there...
$ grep 'byte$' /usr/share/dict/words
presbyte
$ dict presbyte
1 definition found
From Webster's Revised Unabridged
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Paul Mison wrote:
Of course, the US has to give their coins cutesy names, just to
LOL. You'll have to try harder than that.
Shilling, bob, pony, monkey, quid, godiva, ton, large one, ..
The US has nothing on the UK here.
Paul
--
Paul Makepeace
On 02/07/2003 at 14:48 +0100, Paul Makepeace wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Paul Mison wrote:
Of course, the US has to give their coins cutesy names, just to
LOL. You'll have to try harder than that.
Shilling, bob, pony, monkey, quid, godiva, ton, large one, ..
The US has
On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, 2:48:38 PM, Paul Makepeace wrote:
PM On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Paul Mison wrote:
Of course, the US has to give their coins cutesy names, just to
PM LOL. You'll have to try harder than that.
PM Shilling, bob, pony, monkey, quid, godiva, ton, large
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 03:17:07PM +0100, Iain Tatch wrote:
Pick up a handful of Merkin change and you get things that say Nickel,
Dime, Quarter with no other clue as to their monetary value. For those
of us not brought up in the USA, even if you're aware that one's 5c and
the other 10c,
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 03:17:07PM +0100, Iain Tatch wrote:
Pick up a handful of Merkin change and you get things that say Nickel,
Dime, Quarter with no other clue as to their monetary value. For those
Quarter Dollar. Pretty obvious. The dime only says dime and I can't
remember nickel.
of us
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Iain Tatch wrote:
Pick up a handful of Merkin change and you get things that say Nickel,
Dime, Quarter with no other clue as to their monetary value.
You don't have any US change handy, do you? :)
penny ($0.01): says ONE CENT
nickel ($0.05): says FIVE CENTS
dime
On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, 3:49:35 PM, Paul Makepeace wrote:
PM What is your point? That the US currency is failing somehow because it
PM doesn't explicitly put its cents value on its coinage?
No, the point was that although there are dozens of slang words for
various monetary amounts in
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 06:44:55PM +0100, Steve Mynott wrote:
GNU units has 'brhundredweight' defined whereas the FreeBSD 4.5
units(1) doesn't (and probably should).
You've inspired me to write this simple patch, which is now waiting
for the approval of a src committer:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:31:31PM +, the hatter wrote:
Another obscure but official unit which I occassionally use in the correct
context is a jiffy, as in just a jiffy, which is actually 1/50th (or
occassionally 1/60th of a second depending on what video standard you're
using)
Hmm..
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 05:59 AM, Tom Hukins wrote:
http://people.freebsd.org/~tom/tmp/units/
i've always loved the sound of yottabyte. yotta yotta yotta.
anyway, i read these aloud to my wife:
kbyte1024 byte
megabyte 1024 kbyte
gigabyte
On 26/06/2003 at 10:19 -0300, Luis Campos de Carvalho wrote:
This is the first time I meet a monetary system that is not based on
the relation
100 - 50 - 20 - 10 - 5 - 1 - 0.50 - 0.25 - 0.10 - 0.01
As other people have mentioned, although not explicitly, the British
pound (and the Euro)
On 26/06/2003 at 15:47 +0100, Iain Tatch wrote:
On Thursday, June 26, 2003, 3:27:21 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Has the inscription Standing on the shoulders of giants around the edge.
I think this one's broke. It's got Deoxyribonucleic Acid written round
the edge. And a rather cool double helix
From: Paul Mison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 6/30/03 1:57:25 PM
Pound coins have their own rotating series of national
designs, the newest set of which (using bridges, just like
Euro notes) have been previewed:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-718623,00.html
IIRC, one of Ian McEwan's
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Paul Mison wrote:
As other people have mentioned, although not explicitly, the British
pound (and the Euro) have different sub-unit currency subdivisions,
ie:
100 50 20 10 5 2 1
as opposed to the US model:
100 50 25 10 5 1
horrific. I don't
muppet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Cantrell said:
The hundredweight is 112 lbs, or 8 stone, or 1/20 ton.
suddenly i have a new understanding of weighin' in at nineteen stone, from
whole lotta rosie. indeed, that is a whole lot of woman. wow.
There was apparently an occasion when some
Roger Horne wrote:
On Fri 27 Jun, Philip Newton wrote:
You have: cwt
You want:
Definition: hundredweight = 100 pounds = 45.359237 kg
which sounds as if it *is* 100 somethings.
But is wrong. There are 112 pounds in a hundredweight (or were when I was at
school).
See
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 04:35:54PM +0100, Andy Mendelsohn wrote:
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 03:07 pm, Dave Cross wrote:
[3] Except perhaps Atonement. Not enjoying that as much as
the others.
--
Oh no, keep at it Dave, it has a great ending. The missus and I read it
out loud to
On 26 Jun 2003 at 17:47, David Cantrell wrote:
But we're saved by the hundredweight not being a hundred anything.
It's not?
units(1) says:
You have: cwt
You want:
Definition: hundredweight = 100 pounds = 45.359237 kg
which sounds as if it *is* 100 somethings.
Perhaps we're talking
S Watkins wrote:
Ian Malpass wrote:
No, they'll both have a mass of an ounce. Their weight - the force exerted
on them by gravity - differs, due to the different uplift by the air
around them. As I mentioned before (assuming this post doesn't beat my
last one) I'm assuming uncompressed
On Fri 27 Jun, Philip Newton wrote:
You have: cwt
You want:
Definition: hundredweight = 100 pounds = 45.359237 kg
which sounds as if it *is* 100 somethings.
But is wrong. There are 112 pounds in a hundredweight (or were when I was at
school).
See
Roger Horne wrote:
But is wrong. There are 112 pounds in a hundredweight (or were when I was at
school).
But that's *about* a hundred. If it were wresting on your toe,
you wouldn't squabble over the difference.
Andrew
On 27 Jun 2003 at 13:28, Roger Horne wrote:
On Fri 27 Jun, Philip Newton wrote:
which sounds as if it *is* 100 somethings.
But is wrong. There are 112 pounds in a hundredweight (or were when I was at
school).
See http://home.clara.net/brianp/weights.html
I sit corrected.
If I have
On Friday, June 27, 2003 13:55 +0200 Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26 Jun 2003 at 17:47, David Cantrell wrote:
But we're saved by the hundredweight not being a hundred anything.
It's not?
units(1) says:
You have: cwt
You want:
Definition: hundredweight = 100 pounds =
David Cantrell said:
The hundredweight is 112 lbs, or 8 stone, or 1/20 ton.
suddenly i have a new understanding of weighin' in at nineteen stone, from
whole lotta rosie. indeed, that is a whole lot of woman. wow.
--
muppet scott at asofyet dot org
Dave Cross wrote:
A pony is 25 quid and a monkey is 500 quid.
But as I said before, you might want to avoid using them as these
terms carry a slight inference that the money is being used for
criminal purposes (for example a bribe).
Oh, I see.
So what is the 'banking' name of UK money?
I
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 13:49, Luis Campos de Carvalho wrote:
Oh, I see.
So what is the 'banking' name of UK money?
I mean, what is the official name for the UK money?
Not the Euro :-D
Red
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:10:56AM -0700, Dave Cross wrote:
There are others like a fathom (6 feet - but used to measure
depths not lengths or heights), a chain (22 yards - the length
of a cricket pitch I think) and a furlong (220 yards).
And a chain is 4 rods (or poles or perches) which
Luis Campos de Carvalho wrote:
Dave Cross wrote:
A pony is 25 quid and a monkey is 500 quid.
But as I said before, you might want to avoid using them as these
terms carry a slight inference that the money is being used for
criminal purposes (for example a bribe).
Oh, I see.
So what is the
Dave Cross wrote:
Here's a brief guide to our measures of length.
1 foot is 12 inches
1 yard is 3 feet
1 mile is 1760 yards
There are others like a fathom (6 feet - but used to measure
depths not lengths or heights), a chain (22 yards - the length
of a cricket pitch I think) and a furlong (220
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:16:58PM +0100, Andrew Wilson wrote:
We currenlty have the following coins:
1pround copper
2pround copper
but for the past few years actually made from steel coated to give the
same colour as the old alloy, because the old alloy was becoming too
expensive
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?
In air, an ounce of gold. In a vacuum, they weigh the same.
Ian
-
--
The soul would have no rainbows if
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:16:58PM +0100, Andrew Wilson wrote:
We currenlty have the following coins:
20phexagonal silver
50phexagonal silver
s/x/pt/g
R
On Thursday, June 26, 2003, 3:18:39 PM, Dave Thorn wrote:
DT And an acre, which is/was a measurement of the area a team of oxen could
DT plough in one day, or (4,840 square yards).
DT I wonder if they had a measure for oxen standards.
*.weights-and-measures, metric, imperial, american, the lot,
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?
In air, an ounce of gold. In a vacuum, they weigh the same.
Ian
-
--
The soul would have no rainbows if
Dave Cross wrote:
Here's a brief guide to our measures of length.
1 foot is 12 inches
1 yard is 3 feet
1 mile is 1760 yards
There are others like a fathom (6 feet - but used to measure
depths not lengths or heights), a chain (22 yards - the length
of a cricket pitch I think) and a furlong (220
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
Fortune saves the day with essential facts such as:
1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's
the law!
If it comes to obscure units, I always had a great fondness for the
nanocentury:
%% (fortunes)
How
Dave Cross said:
Currently it's called sterling. Soon it will become the Euro.
Yes, but it's positively simple compared with our systems
of length and weight :)
Is there more? Cool! =-]
Can you point me somewhere on the net where I can
(read|learn) about this? Thank you very, very,
Luis Campos de Carvalho wrote:
Dave Cross wrote:
Here's a brief guide to our measures of length.
1 foot is 12 inches
1 yard is 3 feet
1 mile is 1760 yards
There are others like a fathom (6 feet - but used to measure
depths not lengths or heights), a chain (22 yards - the length
At 14.35 + 03-06-26, the hatter wrote:
If you're measuring speeds, you obviously need a time unit to go with your
length, I propose wider adoption of the millifortnight - about 20 minutes.
I prefer the microfortnight, 1.2096 seconds.
--
Anders Hellström
Ian Malpass said:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?
In air, an ounce of gold. In a vacuum, they weigh the same.
bzzt! they always weigh the same, because the same mass experiences the same
amount of
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:27:21PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
5p round silver
10p round silver
20p hexagonal silver
50p hexagonal silver
Both are heptagonal - they have 7 sides. This can surprise foreigners
Indeed they are. Braino on my part. Would you believe I actually hoked
one
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:27:59PM +0100, Ian Malpass wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?
In air, an ounce of gold. In a vacuum, they weigh the same.
No, because it is a different trick question
An ounce
We currenlty have the following coins:
---
20p hexagonal silver
50p hexagonal silver
---
andrew
Um, I think septagonal is the accurate term:
http://www.tclayton.demon.co.uk/pics/dec20.html
http://www.tclayton.demon.co.uk/pics/dec50.html
Dave (Just Another Pedantic Hacker)
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 04:40:09PM +0200, Anders Hellstr?m wrote:
At 14.35 + 03-06-26, the hatter wrote:
If you're measuring speeds, you obviously need a time unit to go with your
length, I propose wider adoption of the millifortnight - about 20 minutes.
I prefer the microfortnight,
So... what you're telling me here, is that if I take an ounce of feathers
and place them on a set of scales, then it will weigh less than an ounce? Or
that ounce of gold weigh will weigh more than an ounce?
From: Ian Malpass [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:28:40 +0100 (BST)
On Thu,
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:42:11PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:27:59PM +0100, Ian Malpass wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?
In air, an ounce of gold. In a vacuum, they
muppet said:
volume measures are weird, too: ounces, cups, pints, quarts, gallons,
barrels, thimbles, something smaller than an ounce that i can't
remember
One of my favourite recipes calls for a scant gill of milk, which I always
found rather poetic.
--
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL
From: Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 6/26/03 2:19:10 PM
Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an
ounce of gold?
I believe they are the same. However if your question was which
is heavier a _pound_ of feathers or a _pound_ of gold? then
the answer (surprisingly) is a
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:10:56AM -0700, Dave Cross wrote:
I mean, what is the official name for the UK money?
Currently it's called sterling. Soon it will become the Euro.
For some value of soon.
--
Chris Benson
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 04:50:04PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
muppet said:
volume measures are weird, too: ounces, cups, pints, quarts, gallons,
barrels, thimbles, something smaller than an ounce that i can't
remember
One of my favourite recipes calls for a scant gill of milk,
On Thursday, June 26, 2003, 3:27:21 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
2 pound round silver and brass
NC Has the inscription Standing on the shoulders of giants around the edge.
NC Anyone tempted to avoid code re-use (Not Invented Here should obtain
NC a £2 coin and read it)
Does it? Never
muppet said:
volume measures are weird, too: ounces, cups, pints, quarts, gallons,
barrels, thimbles, something smaller than an ounce that i can't
remember
One of my favourite recipes calls for a scant gill of milk, which I always
found rather poetic.
From what I
snip
there are several (5) multipliers, usually used only on a lot and a bunch:
.5x ickle
2x whole
4x damn
7x bleedin'
10x f*ckin'
plus combinations, such as a whole, whole lot (2x2x7=28), and a whole damn
f*uckin bunch (2x4x10x6=480).
however, infinity, or at least the
[OK mariachi, how you gonna thread this?]
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:45:30PM +0100, Joel Bernstein wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:42:11PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
A Troy ounce is heavier.
Which is heavier, a pound of gold or a pound of feathers?
How many troy ounces in a troy
David Wright said:
Scottish measures are bigger too (from fond memory), I think they might be
1/5 gill.
Ooh, and whilst searching for the correct fraction, I found some other
curious Scots quantities:
4 gills = 1 mutchkin
2 mutchkins = 1 chopin
Which is well on the way to Brahms and
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 04:20:18PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
however, infinity, or at least the superlative limit of something's magnitude,
is brass monkey.
actually that's a measure of cold.
there is 1 SI unit used as well - the sh*tload
as in 1 SI sh*tload of X
I think you'll
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Joel Bernstein wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 04:40:09PM +0200, Anders Hellstr?m wrote:
At 14.35 + 03-06-26, the hatter wrote:
If you're measuring speeds, you obviously need a time unit to go with your
length, I propose wider adoption of the millifortnight - about
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 14:51, Chris Benson wrote:
For some value of soon.
Soon being defined as If i'm here, over my dead body.
Hmm, what was I doing on Tuesday again?
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there is 1 SI unit used as well - the sh*tload
as in 1 SI sh*tload of X
Also is the closely related 'Shed'
/J\
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:31:31PM +, the hatter wrote:
The best unit is the millihelen - which is defined as the amount of
beauty required to launch one ship.
My favourite unit is the barn. I don't recall what it is, something like
10^(-26) at a rough guess.
Oh, the wit of pyysicists
For some value of soon.
Soon being defined as If i'm here, over my dead body.
Surely the value of 'soon' here means 'as soon as possible', and implies
that it would be an exceptionally good thing?
/me dons flame-retardant suit, runs, ducks, covers
+Pete
--
B: Pinky, Are you pondering what
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 16:00, Peter Sergeant wrote:
For some value of soon.
Soon being defined as If i'm here, over my dead body.
Surely the value of 'soon' here means 'as soon as possible', and implies
that it would be an exceptionally good thing?
So you're saying you want me dead?
Cool.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, the hatter wrote:
Another obscure but official unit which I occassionally use in the correct
context is a jiffy, as in just a jiffy, which is actually 1/50th (or
occassionally 1/60th of a second depending on what video standard you're
using)
A jiffy is 1/HZ of a second,
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, muppet wrote:
Ian Malpass said:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?
In air, an ounce of gold. In a vacuum, they weigh the same.
bzzt! they always weigh the same, because the same mass
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Rob Thompson top-quoted:
In air, an ounce of gold. In a vacuum, they weigh the same.
So... what you're telling me here, is that if I take an ounce of feathers
and place them on a set of scales, then it will weigh less than an ounce? Or
that ounce of gold weigh will weigh
On Thursday, June 26, 2003 15:19 +0100 Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alternatively a chain is 100 links, which sounds almost metric.
(Quick, wash your mouth out)(or bah, that sounds too sane to be Imperial)
But we're saved by the hundredweight not being a hundred anything.
--
David
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, David Cantrell wrote:
On Thursday, June 26, 2003 15:19 +0100 Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alternatively a chain is 100 links, which sounds almost metric.
(Quick, wash your mouth out)(or bah, that sounds too sane to be
Imperial)
But we're saved by the
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Shevek wrote:
A jiffy is 1/HZ of a second, where HZ depends on your architecture. On
most x86s, it's 1/100.
Unless you're using a Pentium, in which case it's 1/101...
--
Chris Devers
Ian Malpass wrote:
No, they'll both have a mass of an ounce. Their weight - the force exerted
on them by gravity - differs, due to the different uplift by the air
around them. As I mentioned before (assuming this post doesn't beat my
last one) I'm assuming uncompressed feathers.
Ian
..and what
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 18:16, Ian Malpass wrote:
No, they'll both have a mass of an ounce. Their weight - the force exerted
on them by gravity - differs, due to the different uplift by the air
around them.
No. Their weight - the force exerted on them by gravity is the same.
The force in the
Redvers Davies said:
On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 18:16, Ian Malpass wrote:
No, they'll both have a mass of an ounce. Their weight - the force exerted
on them by gravity - differs, due to the different uplift by the air
around them.
No. Their weight - the force exerted on them by gravity is the
79 matches
Mail list logo
