Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!inmos!brac!davidb
From: davidb@brac.inmos.co.uk (David Boreham)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: GIPS? --> BIPS!
Message-ID: <13247@ganymede.inmos.co.uk>
Date: 20 Dec 90 08:41:31 GMT
References: <818@atcmpe.atcmp.nl> <780022@otter.hpl.hp.com>
Sender: news@inmos.co.uk
Reply-To: davidb@inmos.co.uk (David Boreham)
Organization: none
Lines: 24

In article <780022@otter.hpl.hp.com> tgg@otter.hpl.hp.com (Tom Gardner) writes:
>|Not so. We changed the definition some time ago to 1000 million.
>
>Not not so (not**2 so :). The 1987 OED lists billion as one million million.
>The latest Chambers also defines million as a million million in both the UK
>and France (since 1948)!
>
>I agree common usage is 10**9, and personally I prefer 10**9. But in the UK
>the _definition_ is 10**12.
>
>Since benchmarks are moderatelty meaningless anyway, I find it mildly pleasing
>that pepole can't even agree on the definition of the number syatem!


Granted. However I've spent 25 years living in the UK and
have _NEVER_ heard anyone using billion to mean 10**12.

Anyway, there are perfectly good, recognised and well-defined
prefixes for the purpose. For example ``Megapound'', 
``Gigadollar'' ``Femptopenny''. 

David Boreham, INMOS Limited | mail(uk): davidb@inmos.co.uk or ukc!inmos!davidb
Bristol,  England            |     (us): uunet!inmos.com!davidb
+44 454 616616 ex 547        | Internet: davidb@inmos.com