Datastream, Week of 9.6.2010

(The staggering numbers that define your world. Datastream runs once a week.)

numbers.jpgZetta! The digital universe is set to expand 44x in the next ten years, but before it does that, we’re on track to hit 1.2 zettabytes — that’s one million, two hundred thousand petabytes — by the end of the year.  A petabyte, if you haven’t been keeping track, is enough to store 13.3 years of high-def video, or 20 million four-drawer filing cabinets filled to the brim with documents. (Google processes about 20 petabytes of data per day.) Another handy measurement? A zettabyte is the equivalent of 50,000 times the entire contents of all recorded human history, in every language that has ever been spoken!

Welcome to Facebook. Can I see your passport? Facebook recently announced that they have 500 million activeusers. How many people is that? Oh, just the population of the entire European Union.

Take Instruction. The Macintosh was the first commercially-available graphical, mouse-driven computer. When it debuted in 1984 for $2,500, it was also one of the most powerful machines on the market. It was capable of processing 500,000 instructions per second, or a half million instructions per second (1/2 MIPS). The iPad, released in 2010 at $499, has a processor presumed to run at 2,000 MIPS. You could put 4,000 Macintosh machines in a room together to equal the iPad’s processing power: doing so would require the wattage of over 1200 refrigerators!

(I know, I know– this isn’t a great measure of performance, given the greater efficiency of modern instruction-sets: the iPad is probably doing even more number-crunching than we give it credit for.)


  1. 150 million users June 28th, 2011 | by bgemsahh Tweet Exactly a month ago I had posted India has 40 million mobile internet users. According to Google India as of June the mobile internet users is far larger. Few key points from

  2. I really love Sakke’s pioftolro, some of his pieces remind me of Tron, like the type for his Rico Tubbs piece and the lighting on Sorayama. I agree with Kelly, the way he uses vintage retro styles but is still able to keep it fresh and current is impressive. I can see why he’s been able to bag clients like Nike and Ray Ban, his interpretations of their products gives the viewer a different outlook on the brand. I think my favourite from his pioftolro is Chulthentai Type, I love the detail in the type from the eyes to the tentacle strands.

  3. Really really like the way that it is only a vitgnae style but it still looks current, a lot of vitgnae designs don’t keep it so current and tend to make the whole thing vitgnae. The lips have to be my favourite for this but the Rico Tubbs logo and Grid 2 are awesome. The logo looks so realistic and the grid is fascinating in the way you keep looking to try and figure it out, is it supposed to be a maze perhaps?

  4. I appreciate your atmpett to make abstractions and create hypotheses.a0After all these are a couple of toolsa0in the futurist toolkit that help to clarifya0if not the future, at least our thinking about (and acting on) it.a0I believe, however, that your hypothesis fails. First it doesn’t clarify. On the contrary it confuses. Lumping in your average app developer with the founders of Google is just one of many places where one is left with a fuzzier rather than clearer understanding of your hypothesis. Second, it’s inaccurate: The domain of future studies is much more diverse, complex and nuanced than you suggest. There are, for example, futurists who focus on mapping the future terrain(s) for the benefit of others (and/or themselves), and there are others who actively work for a more positive, normative future. The Millenium Project’s State of the Future work may appear to your eyes, for example, to be a merely academic exersize in measurement (complete with charts), but I would consider it’s aim to make as clear and transparent as possible/practical to policy makers the complex future rushing at us to be a highly innovative effort.a0Business profit rewards are not the only arena for innovation. Additionally, one of this project’s leaders, one of your boring’ over 50 year old’ pioneers in future studies and an innovator of futures methodology was also instrumental in the development of the Apollo booster rocket. So would you label him an ivory tower number-crunching futurist, or an innovator who gets (AMAZING!) things done’?Which brings me to a third flaw in your proposal:a0your suggested mapping of Futurist and Innovator does not map to the reality you are trying to clarify. In other words, Futurist and Innovator do not sit on opposite poles of the same spectrum. At best they are orthoganal. Better clarity and possible insight would result if you laid it out as 4 quadrants. For example (! = Not):a0+Innovator + Futurist: Buckminster Fuller, Kurweil+Innovator !Futurist: GoodReader iPad app developer (I would disagree with your assumption that app developers are necessarily innovators.. most are not)!Innovator +Futurist: HG Wells, Toffler (at least not as you seem to define innovation)!Innovator !Futurist: but then that mean using one of the clarifying tools of the boring, academic, chart-obsessed futurist’s toolkit.

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv badge

Sign up for our mailing list!

Stay informed. We'll let you know when great things happen.