Stretched end to end, it would reach from San Francisco

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Nov 01, 2003 12:55 am

Academics in California have confirmed what every office worker in the land has known for years: we are drowning in a rising sea of information.Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, say the amount of information being generated worldwide has increased by 30% each year since 1999, and that the amount being stored has doubled in that time.That means 800 megabytes of data - roughly equivalent to 800 books - was created for every man, woman and child in 2002.The research team studied information stored on paper, film, and optical and magnetic media, and measured the vast flows of information across the internet. They found the new information, stored on everything from hard disk drives to paper, added up to 5m terabytes - or 5 million million MB - last year alone.Attempting to make that figure a little more imaginable, the team estimated this adds up to the contents of half a million new Libraries of Congress. (Guardian)***Thanks. That's easy to picture.***

Powderhorn · **Posted:** Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:44 am

Not to mention, we lose miserably at Wolf 359.

Dyslexic · **Posted:** Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:47 pm

That's a lot of information to assimilate.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:47 pm

Who computes this 30 percent rise in information? And does the reporting of a 30 percent rise in information push the rise in information up to 30.001 percent?How do you compute that there is more information than ever before? Does outdated information count as information?Christ, my head hurts.

Dyslexic · **Posted:** Sun Nov 02, 2003 10:21 pm

Who computes this 30 percent rise in information?
Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley.And does the reporting of a 30 percent rise in information push the rise in information up to 30.001 percent?
No.How do you compute that there is more information than ever before?
Unknown. I've never heard of anyone investigating that hypothesis.Does outdated information count as information?
Yes.Christ, my head hurts.
Sorry to hear that.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Mon Nov 03, 2003 12:13 am

I guess I should not even ask what Wolf 359 is.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Mon Nov 03, 2003 12:42 am

This extremely faint star is the third closest to Sol after Alpha Centauri 3 and Barnard's Star. It is located only about 7.8 light-years away in the east central part (10:56:29+07:00.7, ICRS 2000.0) of Constellation Leo.
This star is extensively referred to in science fiction, so a wise copy editor would check the limited web matches with an astronomer methinks.

Jackie · **Posted:** Mon Nov 03, 2003 1:04 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Bumfketeer:
I guess I should not even ask what Wolf 359 is.<hr></blockquote>Don't feel bad, I had to ask, too. I was told it was a "Star Trek" reference, but apparently one of those new-fangled "Star Trek" shows... don't get me started.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Mon Nov 03, 2003 1:12 am

Truth be told, I never saw the old-fangled Star Trek either.Mr. Google has educated me on Wolf 359. Thanks, Jackie and Paul, and apologies to the Trekkies.If you had said "It would stretch all the way to Dark Star," I would have gotten it...

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Mon Nov 03, 2003 2:24 am

I should have titled this thread "Stretched end to end, it would reach from San Francisco to Alpha Centauri," I suppose.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:16 am

Phil,I'm glad you didn't. It taught me something.One thing this thread made me think about: how treacherous it can be to use pop culture references in headlines and cutlines.A guy in Milwaukee once wrote a hed for a photo that I didn't understand, so I redid it in the composing room. When the paper came up he was outraged. "It was a clever reference to a Cat Stevens song!" he huffed. Well, great. I guess about 6 percent of the readers would have gotten a huge chuckle out of it. (It wasn't even one of his "hits"...just an album cut).But, judging from colleagues I have known over the years, I reckon a Star Trek reference is a pretty good bet on a copy editor site . Not that there's anything wrong with it.[ November 03, 2003: Message edited by: Bumfketeer ]

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Mon Nov 03, 2003 4:28 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Bumfketeer:
Phil,One thing this thread made me think about: how treacherous it can be to use pop culture references in headlines and cutlines.<hr></blockquote>You're right. Obviously I am aware of the "Star Trek" connection to Wolf 359, and I would never use it in "real life."

Testy Copy Editors

Stretched end to end, it would reach from San Francisco

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links